GLOBAL WARMING FACTS AND COMMENTS 8-20-13

THE WORLD'S BIGGEST POLLUTERS

The 2011 figures for the biggest polluters:

1. China, up 10 percent to 10 billion tons.

2. United States, down 2 percent to 5.9 billion tons

3. India, up 7 percent to 2.5 billion tons.

4. Russia, up 3 percent to 1.8 billion tons.

5. Japan, up 0.4 percent to 1.3 billion tons.

6. Germany, down 4 percent to 0.8 billion tons.

7. Iran, up 2 percent to 0.7 billion tons.

8. South Korea, up 4 percent to 0.6 billion tons.

9. Canada, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons.

10. South Africa, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons.

Source
Source
San Francisco's Disappearing Ocean Beach
San Francisco's Disappearing Ocean Beach | Source

The Vanishing Islands--NPR Website

The Vanishing Islands
Climate change is one of the major topics of discussion at the U.N. General Assembly this week. In a few small island countries, it's not some abstract, far-off concept: it's reality. The Seychelles Islands, for example, are sinking. The series of about 115 islands in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Kenya, has been compared to the Garden of Eden. It's already seen the world's worst coral die-off and was mostly underwater after the 2004 tsunami. Some on the archipelago argue it will be completely submerged in 50 to 100 years.  Seychelles' ambassador to the United Nations, Ronald Jumeau, talks about the immediate effects of climate change, and what his country is doing to prepare.

2-17-10 NY TIMES EDITORIAL WEIGHS IN ON IPPC Emails

WITH STAKES THIS HIGH

Published: February 17, 2010

Disclosures of isolated errors and exaggerations in the 2007 report from the United Nations panel on climate change do not undermine its main finding: that the planet has been warming gradually for more than a century and that human activity is largely responsible. But the misstatements have handed climate skeptics a public relations boost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17wed2.html?ref=opinion

February 2010 Harper's Magazine--Cap and Trade Shell Game

A recent article in Harper's raised serious issues with the operation of Euorpean Union cap and trade program over the failure adequately to verify the legitimacy of many of the carbon offset projects financed by polluters to allow them to continue polluting. The organization chargec with verifying the implementation and actual effects of the carbon offset projects is under staffed and lacks technically competent staff. The Harper's February 2010 article by Mark Schapiro is titled Conning the Climate, Inside the Carbon Trading Shell Game.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/0082826

Lord Monckton British Right-wing Bloviator

The Conservatives Weigh in on Climate Change, Health Care, Autism,etc.

7-1-09 Ten Outrageous Climate Change Claims

10 Outrageous Claims

As the House debate heated up, so did the hyperbole.

We already knew that climate action opponents were, shall we say, special.

They've spent years denying the reality of global warming and doing everything possible to delay action. But, last week's floor debate put their tortured reasoning in the Congressional Record.

We've compiled 10 of the most outrageous comments from the floor last week.

Yes, they're bizarre. But, it's important to keep in mind that we are very likely to see much more of this as the bill moves to the Senate.

10 Outrageous Claims

10) "Wake up, America. There hasn't been any global warming, which is what we heard over and over and over again – there hasn't been any global warming for 10 years." – Rep. Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA)

No warming for 10 years? Well, not exactly true. 1998 was the 2nd hottest year on record while 2008 was only the 8th hottest. So, if you only look at those two years, you might assume there hasn't been any warming. But, 2005 was the hottest year on record and the warmest decade on record is 1998 through 2008. The trends are clear. The planet is warming. Period.

9) "You want to talk about a massive new welfare program for energy? It's in here too… It's a whole new welfare program for energy." – Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)

If you want to talk welfare, what about the hundreds of billions the oil, gas and coal industries have received in subsidies and tax breaks over the years?

8) "God has put us on this Earth as responsible stewards of these resources, and we ought to use them responsibly. This bill does not do it. In fact, it does nothing good. The only meaningful thing that it might do is provide a relatively meaningless photo op for our President in December in Copenhagen as he stands to brag about what America has done while the leaders of India and China laugh at us behind his back." – Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)

We look forward to working with Rep. Conaway to strengthen this bill and to fight for the strongest possible international global warming treaty later this year.

7) "Energy producing states like Oklahoma will be economically punished and devastated." – Rep Tom Cole (R-OK)

Rep. Cole should have a look at climate models showing that Oklahoma could spend nearly the entire summer with 100+ temperatures by the end of the century. Talk about devastating.

6) "We should not be the first lemming to jump off the cliff." – Rep. Doc Hasting (R-WA)

That's an interesting point given that the U.S. is the only industrial country in the world that never ratified the Kyoto global warming treaty and that much of Europe is operating under a carbon cap right now.

5) "[For some, this bill is an] economic death sentence." – Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

As opposed to the current economy in which we are held hostage by our reliance on foreign oil and in which only last summer we saw gas prices exceed $4/gallon.

4) "The whole point of cap-and-trade is to make fossil fuels, or 85 percent of the energy we consume, more expensive." – Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)

No, the point of this bill is to cap global warming pollution, put Americans back to work building out our clean energy future, and free us from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

3) "Do you want to throw away the economic prosperity for nothing, because that's what this bill does. And for what, to satisfy the twisted desires of radical environmentalists." – Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)

With millions of Americans out of work and the economy in recession, it might not be the best time to talk about "throwing away our economic prosperity" or to support the status quo.

2) "[This will bring us back to] hunting and gathering." – Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)

Yeah, when we look at solar panels, hybrids and windmills, that's exactly what comes to mind – hunting and gathering societies.

1) "The idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax… We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax!" – Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)

A global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists taking tens of thousands of measurements on everything ranging from ice core samples to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to sea level rise, hundreds of governments around the world working to address global warming pollution, dozens of science academies that have endorsed the reality of global warming and urged action, as well as hundreds of millions of people around the world who have joined the movement to promote global warming action.

And, we're all coordinating our activities to push this hoax because…?

Posted: 30-Jun-2009; Updated: 01-Jul-2009

3-29-09 M.I.T. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Updated Integrated Global System Model

The M.I.T. global climate model tracks and predicts climate change from 1861-2100. Its revised projection indicates that if we stick with business as usual, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, average surface temperatures on 'Earth by 2100 will hit levels far beyond anything humans have ever experienced.

"In our mor recent global model simulations the ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower. Not one of these effects is very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not fully explain the higher temperatures but rather than interacting additively, these different effects appear to interact multiplicatively, with feedbacks among the contributing factors leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures."

Quoted from Thomas L. Friedman's op-ed in the NYTimes 3-29-09.

ClimateWorks CEO Hal Harvey's Five Global Warming Policies

Hal Harvey:

There are five policies that can help us win the energy-climate battle and each has been proven somewhere.

1. Building codes: California's energy-efficient building and appliance codes now save Californians $6 billion per year.

2. Better vehicle fuel efficiency standards: The European Union's fuel efficiency fleet average for new cars now stands at 41 MPG, and is rising steadily.

3. National renewable portfolio standard mandating that power utilities produce 15 or 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2020.

4. Decoupling--the program begun in California that turns the utility business on its head. Under decoupling, power utilities make money by helping homeowners save energy rather than by encouraging them to comsume it.

5. Put a price on carbon. Polluting the atmosphere can't be free.

From an Op-ed by Thomas L. Friedman in the NYTimes 3-29-09.

A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming, Andrew Revkin in the NYTimes 4-6-08

A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming

With recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late...

"If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people." Jeffrey Sachs.

What is needed,Mr. Sachs and others say is the development of radically advanced low-carbon technologies, which they say will only come about with greatly increased spending by determined governments on what has so far been an anemic commitment to research and development. A Manhattan-like project, so to speak.

Here's a link to Andrew Revkin's article which will bring you up to date on the latest thinking on global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html?scp=2&sq=andrew+c.+revkin&st=nyt



 


NEW YORK TIMES FORUM ON GLOBAL WARMING

Here are a couple of good links on global warming--a NYTimes discussion forum which and a link to previous NYT articles on climate change.



http://www.nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/25energyforum.html

ttp://whww.nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/energy.html The Energy Challenge



11-29 U.S. SUPREME COURT TAKES UP GLOBAL WARMING CASE

Supreme Court Meltdown Over Global Warming

http://www.slate.com/id/2154622


11-27 WHAT YOU CAN EASILY DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING--UNPLUG YOUR CELL PHONE CHARGER AND OTHER SIMPLE ACTIONS. HERE: http://www.slate.com/id/2151798

11-25 TAMING KING COAL nytimes lead editorial

The fron page of this newspaper's business section recently featured two articles about the world's most plentiful fuel, coal. Written from different parts of the globe, they framed the magnitude of the task confronting international negotiators and the newly empowered Democrats in Congress who want to put the brakes on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.

One article pointed out that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2000, a decade ahead of previous predictions. A big reason is the explosion in the number of automobiles, but the main reason is China's ravenous appetite for coal, the dirtiest of all fuels, to produce electricity. Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China, with enough capacity to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. What's frightening about this for those worried about the long-term consequences of warming is that nearly all of these plants are being built along traditional lines, burning pulverized coal to make electricity. And what's sad about it is that there's a much cleaner coal-burning technology available. Known as IGCC--for integrated gasification combined cycle--this cleaner technology converts coal into a gas before it is burned.

These plants produce fewer of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than conventional power plants do. More important, from a global warming perspective, they also have the potential to capture and sequester greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide before they enter the atmosphere.

This new technology is not readily available in China, but it is available to utilities in the U.S. Which brings us to the second article--an announcement by TXU, a giant Texas energy company, that it intends to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas, plus another dozen or so elsewhere in the country. All told, this would be the nation's largest single coal-oriented construction campaign in years.

Is TXU availing itself of the cleaner technology? No. TXU will use the old pulverized coal model. The company says the older models are more reliable. But the real reason it likes the older models is that they are easier to build, cheaper to run and, ultimately, much more profitable. So, like the Chinese, TXU is locking itself (and the country) into at least 50 more years of the most carbon-intensive technology around.

BArbara Boxer, the California Democrat who will shortly assume command of the Senate environment committee, believes tht we should impose a price on carbon emissions (as Europe has done) so that companies like TXU will begin to think about investing in cleaner technologies--technologies that China could lthen use in its power plants. The message from both Texas and China is that Ms. Boxer should get cracking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25sat1.html



Comment: Global warming is not a scientific problem. The science is pretty well settled, both the causes and remedies for for warming. The real problem is a political problem--informing public opinion and mobilizing the support and cooperation necessary to do what is needed here and around the world. The United States should be leading this effort, not dragging its feet. Write your Congressman!


11-20 United Nations conference on global warming ends with modest accomplishments. The conference was attended by 6,000 representatives from around the world. A letter signed by Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman and Joseph Lieberman stating that Democrats in January would begin a push for strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions. However, Paula Dobrianski, top U.S. delegate to the conference stood firm on the Bush position that the best approach was for voluntary partnerships between developing and wealthy countries that promote economic growth while limiting pollution. The Kyoto protocol, which the U.S. has not signed expires in 2012.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/science/18warming.html


11-19 Harnessing the the wind to power ski resorts is a new trend.

My intention for this hub is to provide links to articles on global warming and, if anyone's interested, to get a discussion going among believers and skeptics. The first article linked below reports on a recent study that says that "Global warming gases traped in the soil are bubbling out of the thawing permafrost in amounts far higher than previously thourght and may trigger what researchers warn is a climate time bomb

"Methane--a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide--is being released from Arctic permafrost at a rate five times faster than thought, according to a study published today in the journal 'Nature'..."


My own belief is that mounting evidence of global warming is sufficient to justify using a significant amount of resources in an effort to reduce the rate of warming. However, I'll try to include credible evidence and opinions to the contrary along with studies supporting the conclusion that we should be worrying more than we are about the future of our planet.

11-7 A review of five new books on global warming one of which scare your pants off! http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Close_to_Catastrophe_Five_Books_on_Global_Warming

11-7 TEXAS UTILITY PLANS 11 DIRTY COAL-FIRED PLANTS, IGNORING GLOBAL WARMING CONCERNS

Ignoring global warming issues, TXU Corp, open-pit coal mine and electric utility company, is embarking on the nation's single largest coal-oriented electric power plant construction campaign. TXU plans to add more than 9,000 megawatts fo new capacity, an increase of 3.5% in coal-fired electric power capacity. Even as some utility executives are joining environmentalists in supporting controls on carbon emissions, TXU is betting $10 billion on 11 new coal power plants that will produce huge amounts of global warming gases for decades to come. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/business/07coal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


11-2 HARVARD SCIENTISTS WEIGH IN ON ETHANOL IN AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "THE ETHANOL ILLUSION" BY MICHAEL B. MCELROY. http://harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110634.html

10-21

SOLAR POWER--AN INNOVATIVE AND PRACTICAL INNOVATION ADOPTED BY GENERAL MOTORS AND OTHERS

General Motors liked the idea of using the sun to power its buildings. But until recently, one immutable economic fact held GM back. the upfront costs were simply too high to justify the ultimate payoff.

GM is not alone. Even solar energy's biggest fans concede that the high investment costs have kept companies from pursuing what is arguably the cleanest, most renewable and least politically sensitive energy source around.

But now, GM and a small but growing number of other companies and municpalities are getting solar energy from systems installed by others. Even though the installations are righty on their own roofs, they buy the electricity much as they would from a utilitiy's grid. And because the companies that paid for the systems will get a steady income, the can provide power from the sun at competitive electricity rates.

The complete NY Times article by Claudia Deutsch is linked here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/business/21solar.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin


10-08

"Clearly there is an emerging consensus among economists--left and right--that the nation would be better off, geopolitically and economically if Americans used less gasoline. The most economically sound, if not the most politically popular, way to accomplish this would be to increase gasoline taxes.

Average gasoline taxes per Gallon

August 2006

Britain..........$4.24

Germany........3.99

France............3.80

Italy..................3.75

Japan.............2.07

Canada..........1.03

U.S.....................40

[A 10-8-06 "Economic View" by Daniel Gross in the NYT is linked below.]


9-15 CALIFORNIA STIFFS POLLUTING ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS


California has just delivered a new message to electric energy suppliers: If you cannot produce power with the lowest possible emissions of these greenhouse gases, we are not interested. [For more, see link below.]

9-15 Oslo, Polar Bears Drown, Islands Appear Due to Arctic Thaw [Link below.]


9-18 You heard it here first. Republicans get ready for a Bush U-turn on global warming. A policy change is rumored to be in the works. See link below.


9-21. BRITISH SCIENCE GROUP SAYS EXXON MISREPRESENTS CLIMATE ISSUES

"A British scientific group, the Royal Society, contends that Exxon Mobil is spreading 'innacurate and misleading' information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue.

"The Royal Society, a 1400-member organization that dates back to the 1600s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon Mobil in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions fo scientists on the issue.

"There is a 'false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going on in the scientific community' about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.

"The reality is that 'thousands and thousands' of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with 'one or two professional contrarians' who disagree."


[NYTimes article by Heather Timmons linked below.]


9-21--GLOBAL WARMING A SUBJECT FOR DIRECTORS AT BIG COMPANIES

"If corporate directors really understood the implications of global warming, would they steer their companies toward preventing it?...

"'Climate change is no longer the purview of scientists only,' said Jmes James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of lForestry and Environm ental Studies. 'The widespread ramifications of unchecked climate change require that more leaders in our society understand its implications.'

"Actually, many corporate executives appear to be well aware of the link between greenhouse gases and climate change.

"More than 80 percent of the companies that provided data for the Carbon Disclosure Project, a report detailing corporate response to global warming issues, acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of climate change. But fewer than half said they were working to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming."

[NYTimes article by Claudia Deutsch linked below.]


9-22 Robert Branson promises $3 billion to fight global warming. [NY Times article linked below.}

Earth Speaks Out

Gletsch--Then and Now

Niagara Falls 1911

Scientists Debate Climate Tipping Points

“The climate is nearing tipping points,” the NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen wrote in The Observer newspaper of London. “If we do not change course, we’ll hand our children a situation that is out of their control.” ...

But the idea that the planet is nearing tipping points — thresholds at which change suddenly becomes unstoppable — has driven a wedge between scientists who otherwise share deep concerns about the implications of a human-warmed climate....

But other scientists say there is little hard evidence to back up specific predictions of catastrophe. They worry that the use of the term “tipping point” can be misleading and could backfire, fueling criticism of alarmism and threatening public support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions....

“I think a lot of this threshold and tipping point talk is dangerous,” said Kenneth Caldeira, an earth scientist at Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution and an advocate of swift action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. “If we say we passed thresholds and tipping points today, this will be an excuse for inaction tomorrow,” he said.

Gletch Glacier Melting
Gletch Glacier Melting | Source

1-1-07 New Middle Stance on Global Warming Emerges

Middle Stance Emerges In Debate on Climate--THERE IS STILL A CHANCE OF AVOIDING CATASTROPHE

According to a NY Times article dated Jan. 1, 2007, some scientists are adopting a middle ground in the debate over global warming. They agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping tailpipe and smokestack gases probably pose a momentous environmental challenge, but they say the appropriate response is more akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house than to fighting a fire already raging. Others remain much more pessimistic. ALL AGREE WE FACE A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

"Climate change presents a very real risk," said Carl Wunsch, a climate and oceans expert at MIT. "It seems worth a very large premium to insure ourselves against the most catastrophic scenarios. Denying the risk seems utterly stupid. Claiming we can calculate the probabilities with any degree of skill seems equally stupid."

Roger Pielke: "We do have a problem, we do need to act, but what actions are practical and pragmatic?...But the discourse is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory."

Other experts say there is no time for nuance, given the general lack of public response to the threat posed particularly by carbon dioxide, a by-product of fossil fuels and forests that persists for a century or more in the air and is accumulating rapidly in the atmosphere and changing the pH of the oceans.

James E. Hansen, the veteran climate scientist with NASA:

"If we want to avoid producing a different planet, we need to start acting now," and not with paltry steps, he said in a recent e-mail exchange with a reporter and other scientists. "It seems almost to be a secret that we cannot put all o f the fossil fuel CO2 into the air without producing a different planet, and, yes, dangerous change. There are people who don't know that!"

21st CENTURY WARMING LIKELY TO BE SEVERAL TIMES GREATER THAN 20th.

Studies used to generate the next UN report have shown a likely warming in the 21st century--undless emissions of greenhouse gases abate--at least several times that of the last century's one-degree rise.

Dr. Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in Britain, says it's best not to gloss over uncertainties. In fact, he and others say that uncertainty is one reason to act--as a hedge against the prospect that PROBLEMS COULD BE MUCH WORSE THAN PROJECTED.

Dr. Hulme and others avoid sounding alarmist, but offer scant comfort to anyone who doubts that humans are contributing to warming or believes the matter can be deferred.

These experts see a clear need for the public to engage now, but not to panic...many in this group see a need to portray clearly that the RESPONSE WOULD REQUIRE FAR MORE THAN SWITCHING TO FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS AND HYBRID CARS.

Dr. Jerry D. Mahlman, climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado: "This is a mega-ethical challenge . The buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cannot be quickly reversed with existing technologies. And even if every engine on earth were shut down today, there would be no measurable impact on the warming rate for many years, given the buildup of heat already banked in the seas."

Because of the scale and time lag, a better strategy, Dr. Mahlman and others say, is to treat human-caused warming more as a risk to be reduced rather than a problem to be solved.

John M. Wallace, climatologist at University of Washington: "Global warming is real, it's serious, but it's just one of many global challenges we're facing...I portray it as part of a broader problem of environmental stewardship--preserving a livable planet with abundant resources for future generations."

Some experts, though, argue that moderation in a message is likely to be misread as satisfaction with the pace of change.

John P. Holdren, an energy and environment expert at Harvard and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science defended the more strident calls for limits on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

"I am one of those who believes that ANY REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE AND UP-TO-DATE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE MAKES CLEAR THAT CIVILIZATION HAS ALREADY GENERATED DANGEROUS ANTHROPOGENIC INTERFERENCE IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. wHAT KEEPS ME GOING IS MY BELIEF THAT THERE IS STILL A CHANCE OF AVOIDING CATASTROPHE."

Andrew C. Revkin's article is linked below. READ IT!

268 comments

mausmi profile image

mausmi 10 years ago from Berkeley

Here's an excellent article from the New York Times by Andrew Revkin about a tropical Arctic 55 million years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01...

The new studies documenting methane bubbling out of permafrost may be the positive feedback, or "something extra," that caused the Arctic to be warmer in the past than predicted by computer simulations.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 10 years ago Author

Thanks for the article. Everybody is encouraged to post a link to an article, pro or con, on the issue and what, if anything, we should be doing about it.


vic profile image

vic 10 years ago

There was an article on CNN.com on August 8, 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/co...

The net of it was that the contrails from the jetliners have a substantial impact on the temperature at the earthr's surface. Is anyone aware of any other studies regarding the effects of contrails on earth's temperature? Could a group of scientists form a project team to develop sub-micron sized dispersable particles which could be sprayed into the startosphere to act as one way mirror to reflect some of the sun's infrared rays from reaching the earth surface while allowing infrared radiation to escape the earth's atmoshere?


sarahd profile image

sarahd 10 years ago


globalgurl543 10 years ago

Global warming or the greenhouse effect is killing polar bears..because all the glaicers are melting and they can't swim for more than a mile in a half so if there are no glaicers in that mile in a half the polar bear will evuntally die becuase they can't swim any longer


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 10 years ago Author

True. Thanks for the comment.


360hub profile image

360hub 9 years ago from Molde

Dear Ralph,

...your article is so in depth that I am not able to read all the details. Let me ask you: where do you find that is "burning" the most?

IM


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 9 years ago Author

I'm not sure what you mean by "burning the most." The U.S. is emitting by far the most greenhouse gases. Soon China and India will catch up with the U.S.


Steiff Bear 8 years ago

Coldest winter in the last 20 years here in the midwest.. Does not feel like warming to me..


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago Author

Not to me either in Detroit. But one cold winter doesn't prove anything any more than one hurricane indicates climate change. What counts is average temperatures over longer periods which have been creeping up coincident with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Here's an update on Global Warming as of 3-29-09.


Doc Snow 7 years ago

Just found your page, Ralph--well done, if a bit lengthy. I'll be coming back for more!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Thanks, Doc!


J D Murrah profile image

J D Murrah 7 years ago from Refugee from Shoreacres, Texas

Ralph,

It sounds like the folks at MIT are misleading the people. Historical records show that the world was very warm during the medieveal years. Stating that we are faced with global warming all has to do with what baseline is being used to make the predictions.

Compared to the Medieval years (say 1000AD), the world is cool. During that time period, Greenland was warm enough to grow wheat. It truly was green back in those days.

Depending on the model used (linear vs. exponential), the results will vary widely. Also, there has been no global warming in the souther hemisphere, which if things were truly global, there would be change around the world.

In terms of temperature change, the fuss is about 1.2-1.7 degrees centigrade over a 100 year period. That is not much.

History tells me that man has had warmer days, even though MIT may say otherwise.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Your comment puts you in with a tiny minority of scientists. Global warming or not is a false dichotomy or dualism. Man-made climate change versus natural historical cycles is not an either-or issue. The climate at any given time is the product of BOTH periodic natural cycles which are beyond our control AND anthropomorphic factors, principally CO2 emissions, which have come into play in the past 100 years or so due to the industrial revolution.

Hard science has established that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. However, science can't predict the future with certainty because the effect of greenhouse gases could be canceled in the future by natural forces beyond our control, or natural forces could accelerate the warming caused by greenhouse gases. Or they could bring on another ice age. Nobody knows for sure. The prevailing scientific view is that absent a significant natural development increases in greenhouse gas emissions will warm the planet and produce significant damaging climate changes.

The extent of the change is debatable as well as how many resources we should be spending to curb greenhouse gases, but the warming trend resulting from greenhouse gases is a settled scientific fact, from what I've read. (I'm not a scientist.)


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

JD Murrah's comment that there has been no warming in the Southern hemisphere is incorrect.  An accessible summary is available at the National Climate Data Center (Google "NCDC climate report 2009".)

They give you a timeseries bar graph for the entire instrumental record, plotted separately for the entire globe, Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere. You can also get similar information for the month of April in context for surface temps, satellite-measured temps at various levels of the atmosphere, and more.

(By the way, April was the 5th-warmest in the 129 years of the instrumental temperature record.)


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Thanks for your comment. J.D. still thinks the South won the Civil war.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

None of my neighbors think that, exactly, but I think some of them are still trying to win the civil war for the South.


J D Murrah profile image

J D Murrah 7 years ago from Refugee from Shoreacres, Texas

Ralph,

Here is the link regarding the southern hemisphere not going through global warming http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisph... . The author is Lubos Motl, who is a Harvard scientist. working on something called the string theory.

In terms of thinking the South won the war, it lost militarily. The issues, principles and cultural factors underlying it were never settled, and still are not as evidenced by secession concerns in Long Island, Staten Island, the resurrection of the 10th amendment, etc. (but that is for another hub). I just wanted to provide you with a link.

Science, as with any academic field has various opinions and interpretations of 'facts'. Such as

-Ice sheet melt theory reassessed (from BBC) http://digg.com/d1rGhU

-Clean air regulations and not CO2 are melting the ice. http://digg.com/d1oLFf (Big government makes the problem worse)

What is clear is that the scientific community are discussing matters and that the public is taking notice. We all need some awareness of science to avoid being led astray.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

J.D., Thanks for the interesting links. The first one takes some cheap shots at James Hansen who is a leading climate scientist. Here's his wikibio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

As I said, I'm not a scientist, and I go mainly by what I read in the NY Times and other non-scientific publications which tell me that the consensus of scientists is that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming. The predictions are not precise and constantly changing as more data becomes available and is analyzed. Again, as I said above man-made climate change (warming) versus natural cycles is not an either-or issue. The climate during any given modern period is a product both of extra terrestrial factors AND man's actions--greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from coal fired power plants and motor vehicles both of which are in our control if we had the will to do it.


Barbara Yurkoski profile image

Barbara Yurkoski 7 years ago

Good article. I'm so tired of hearing from the declining but determined climate change deniers with their recycled arguments. Let's get on with it.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Thanks. Me too.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Ralph, I meant to ask whether you'd let me link to this page.  Would that be OK?

In case you want to check out the hub, it's:

http://hubpages.com/hub/

The-Science-Of-Global-Warming-In-The-Age-Of-Napoleon

(Paste halves of the URL together in your browser window, or just use the title by itself in the hubpages search window. The curse of a long name!)


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Sure. Help spread the word! In my estimation the problem is more one of education and world politics than science. The science is pretty clear so far as I can tell. (I'm not a scientist.)


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Very good--I'll get that link in as soon as I can.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

I've added another hub, and consequently another link to your site.  You can see it at:

http://hubpages.com/hub/

The-Science-of-Global-Warming-

in-the-age-of-Napoleon-III

(Paste link segments together or search the site.)

If it's not OK to add the link for some reason, please let me know & I'll pull it ASAP!

Thanks!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

The link doesn't work. You are welcome to link your hub to my site.


MoniqueAttinger profile image

MoniqueAttinger 7 years ago from Georgetown, ON

Climate change may not be the half of it - or only the most obvious symptom to us "land dwellers". If you read Alanna Mitchell's book, "Sea Sick", you'll see that we are having a profound impact on our oceans - and this is even more critical than anything we are doing to the air. In fact, our oceans acting as a "heat sink" is likely why we haven't destroyed ourselves yet - but that doesn't mean we aren't capable of it or that we won't if we don't wake up.

I have a hub where I review her book. Check out: http://hubpages.com/politics/Sick-Seas-How-Alannah...

It's well worth the read.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Thanks. Will check your hub.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

You have been duped. This is a political hijacking and there is no clear science as to "man made" global warming. Any impartial scientist who is not on the books of government will tell you that our earth' climate is a vastly complicated interaction of many ingredients and is totally impossible to pinpoint one factor as the culprit of global warming. Also, recent studies of the past few years show a slight "cooling" which is conveniently left out of any reporting that usually cites a 30 year average. The environmentalists, and liberals have teamed up for a power grab that is disenguious and dishonest in its reporting . DOnt be so gullible.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Tnx for your comment. We disagree. More than 90% of scientists agree that global warming threatens our way of life. The effect of greenhouse gases has been well-documented. It is beyond dispute.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

greenhouse gases have an effect on the climate, this is not in dispute. Where you have been duped is this. THeir political agenda has convinced you this is a bad thing and that man has caused it. "man made" green house gases make up only a small percentage of those gases. Most of them occur naturally and are an important part of our climate. Do you understand that CO2 is a natural part of our climate and not some poison or pollutant as they want you to believe. DO you also know they are using statistics only when if favors their studies. They continue to give out 30 year averages when over the past 4 or 5 years we have showed a slight cooling in earth temperatures. YOu should always question when a political movement has taken sides in such a strong way. There are over 30,000 scientists who have problems with the way this science has been interpreted and are demanding much more debate and unbiased testing. The problem is that all the money is behind the "Al GOre" science which is full of "hot air" THe real truth is that the earths temperatures has always been a fluctuating thing and now is no different. We have come in and out of at least two ice ages long before man became industrialized. You wont hear those comments from a "global warming" scientist.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Actually, Braudboy--and with all due respect--you *will* hear those comments from mainstream climate scientists. These points have been part of the mainstream science for a long time now.

I've started a series of hub setting forth the "classic" science of climate change, in a human-interest sort of vein, as referenced above in this comment thread. However, a really excellent source for anyone wanting to learn about the scientific basis has been available for several years from physicist and writer Spencer Weart. It's called "The Discovery of Global Warming," and is a terrific piece of science writing. Google it, and you'll see what I mean.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

YOu still miss the point. NO scientist has ever proven that "man-made" green house gases have caused global warming or that global warming even exists. These are conclusions based on computer models and cannot be verified in the real world. Again, it does not take a genius to understand that global climate temperatures have always fluctuated and have never been constant. Also, there are too many variables involved in creating climate temperatures and therefore impossible to isolate a "culprit". The research that needs to be done is who is financing the scientific research and what is their agenda. It is here that you will find the answers to what is going on. The "mainstream" scientists you refer to are on the payroll for a political movement. Try reading some research from scientists who are more impartial and not beholden for certain results.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Braudboy, yours is a tiny minority view. The conclusions are based on actual scientific measurements of temperature, ice thickness, greenhouse gas emissions etc, and on computer models which predict what will happen in the future if we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Climate at any given time is based on a combination of natural forces beyond our control and man-made factors that are within our control. It seems to me that, although we may not be able to predict or control natural forces, it makes sense as a precaution to control what is within our control.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

YOU are still not listening when I say, they cannot determine what part man is contributing to this equation. Earth' climate has always fluctuated in all of those categories for centuries and since the beginning. We have gone in and out of at least 2 ice ages long before man became industrialized. There is an agenda here and you are too accepting of their conclusions. Why is man responsible for these fluctuations when these fluctuations were occurring since the beginning of time? Don't be so willing to give up your freedoms and learn to ask questions. And, it is pure lunacy that they tell you they can predict the future of earth's climate. THeir man-made computer models are worthless.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Well, you are getting information from different sources than I am. I'm not a scientist, however, from what I read more than 90% of the scientists are concerned about the effect on our climate of the tons of CO we are pumping into the atmosphere every day from coal fired power plants and huge, gas guzzeling motor vehicles.

No one knows what natural fluctuations for which we may be in store. However, the science is quite clear on the effect of GO and other gases that we have been increasingly pumping into the air since the industrial revolution. This could be cancelled out, accentuated or not affected by a natural fluctuation over which we have not control. If we assume that a natural fluctuation will not occur or will be minor, the earth's temperature will be increased by greenhouse gases. At least that's my understanding of our situation. Why take chances?


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Ralph, I don't know if you've seen this yet, but a summary report is now out from the Copenhagen conference earlier this year.  You (or any hubber) can download a PDF at this link:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/file...

I appreciate the overall message, which is twofold:

1)  action in mitigating emissions is urgent, and

2)  there is still time for this action to be highly effective, although it is too late to avoid all negative consequences of "committed" warming.

In particular, it is still believed possible to avoid warming in excess of 2 degrees C--although unfortunately that degree of warming seems to be more dangerous to health, food and water security--as well as the political/military kind--and to biodiversity, than previously thought.

 


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Why take chances?? Do you realize the drastic changes this movement is trying to force on society....without any real evidence to support this madness? It is a way to get their policies of more government and control over our freedoms. YOu should not be so willing to give up your rights.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Thanks, Doc, I haven't had a chance to read the report yet but will do so.

I bet Braudboy hasn't either. The longer we wait the more drastic the changes will be. I haven't noticed any proposals to give up my rights.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

YOu haven't noticed any proposals to give up my rights????? Are you serious? YOu haven't heard of controlling our thermostats, giving up our SUVs, being taxed on using energy resources, limiting our uses of energy resources, and the list goes on. THis is a political movement that has hijacked a cause that might have had noble intentions in the beginning...but no more. They are not to be trusted.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Well, we don't agree. Man had nothing to do with previous fluctuations but more recently has contributed to well-documentd sources of warming. As I pointed out above,. the anthropormorphic effects may be reinforced or cancelled out by natural fluctuations. Nobody knows. However, if you assume the natural forces to be neutral man made sources of climate change are warming the planet. Just about all scientists agree on this. Even Exxon-Mobil has finally come around and spending research money on green energy.

I don't think any of the proposals to combat global warming conflict with any of our rights under the Constitution. (It doesn't contain anything about the right to drive a Hummer, one person per vehicle.)


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

YOu make no sense. THey are most certainly infringing on our rights under the fear of a "global warming" crisis. You have been "slicked" by a bunch of con men. The science that you do not hear in the headlines is that the sun is burning hotter than ever in the past 1,000 years according to scientists and temperatures across the solar system are above "normal"! WOW! I dont think man's contribution can reach across the solar system....and it shows the real culprit of any global warming......our advisary, the sun.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

.... and how can man have nothing to do with previous warmings on this earth, and now you are convinced that he has everything to do with it?  If you would use any common sense, it would be a  very possible conclusion that the earth does not have a constant temperature and goes thru fluctuations.  Therefore, how can scientists prove otherwise??? THe answer is they cannot.  THey have proven nothing and only have theories.  THen, you should ask yourselves, do they have alterior motives?  Where is the agenda in the conclusions they reach?  THere is a strong political movement with alot of money backing it up and there is very little science involved.  Science is based on facts, and this "global warming" nonsense leaves the facts behind when it places blame on man.  The unbiased science realizes that our climate is too complex and has too many variables to accurately perform scientific experiments that conclude that man is causing anything.  THe much more probable culprit, if there is any "global warming" at all, is the increased activity of our sun.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Have you heard of the effects of the industrial revolution, huge increases in population and burning of hydrocarbons which has put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. If you would read my comments above you will see that I agree that the earth had experienced climate cycles. This is nothing new. What's new is the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (scientifically measured with considerable precision) and their accumulation in the atmosphere (scientifically measured) which are increasingly contributing to global warming.

Until recently, the "strong political movement" has been the oil, electric power and auto companies influencing our representatives in Washington. They haven't gone away, but they've stopped funding propaganda denying global warming. Now they are just trying to interfere quietly with efforts to do something about it. Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute hired the same PR guys that the tobacco companies used to deny that smoking caused lung cancer.

We are talking past each other. Why not just agree to disagree? (IMHO you need to read up a bit more on the subject in more reliable publications!)


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 7 years ago from Ohio

Great hub Ralph....the only people who ignore global warming are those who profit from trashing the earth. If we don't help fix it.....mother nature will fix it by removing us...Again...thanks..great hub!


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

But, as you agree that the earth' climate has fluctuated, can you not see the strong possibility that man has nothing to do with climate. It is far beyond man to manipulate on this level. The whole solar system has warmed.....by the effects of the sun, which is burning hotter. The whole thing is ridiculous. There is no proof, but many are willing to grab hold of this idea to push an agenda. Watch the profiteers and power-grabbers that are manipulating the gullible masses such as yourself. They have proven nothing and you are falling down in your duty to be sceptical of such behavior.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Tom...you have hit on the real participants in this movement. It is the environmentalist extremists who think we are trashing the earth and they are willing to put a stop to it by any means....even lying and deceiving the masses and using fear as a motivator. "Global Warming" is a fairy tale and a tool by which they will try to manipulate earth's citizens into not polluting. These envirnomentalists do not even see that they too are being used by a powerful agenda that will not prevent pollution, but only tax it and make us less free to enjoy life. as those in power continue their same lifestyle, it will be harder for those of middle-class means to pay for the pleasures we enjoy now.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

You're sounding more and more like some of the conspiracy theorists--Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA on instructions from LBJ, 911 was engineered by Jews because they got the word and evacuated and/or shorting the market, Obama was born in Kenya, a secret Muslim and not eligible for the Presidency, etc.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

No...I am disputing the conspiracy theory. I am sceptical of the con job and the doomsday approach with which they conjur up their fear and panic. You should try to take a deep breath and look deeper into their eyes and search their true motives. You should always beware of the one who is selling.....and the "global warmers" are the ones selling.


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 7 years ago from Ohio

Perhaps I am gullible....but I choose to help maintain the earth...even if there is nothing to global warming.....what does it hurt to clean our environment...do something towards helping the planet?


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Braudboy, please read the science. It is far deeper and broader than you, or most people, realize. If you do, you will realize that the conspiracy idea just isn't viable. (It's pretty easy to access today, too. Start with "The Discovery of Global Warming" I previously gave a link for.

Also, I'm doing a series of "life, work, and times" Hubs on classical global warming science. So far, I have published 3:

The Science Of Global Warming In The Age Of Napoleon

The Science of Global Warming in the Age of Napoleon III

The Science Of Global Warming In The Age Of Queen Victoria

These are suitable for "non-science" folks, but do try to encapsulate why each researcher's work was important in building the mainstream picture of greenhouse gases and climate.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Thanks, Doc.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I understand the greenhouse gases...they are an important part of our climate. NOw, do you understand that man's contribution is minimal to the total greenhouse gases involved in our climate temperatures. Do you see how they manipulate and gloss over the debate that there is no way possible to isolate what effect man is contributing to the overall climate. Also, they never explain how past earth temperature fluctuations occurred before the industrialization of man. There is no discussion that quite possibly the earth is just going thru the cycle again and that man has a minimal and maybe no effect of temperatures. You see, if man is only a small percentage of the greenhouse gases to begin with, and we can only change some small percentage of our small percentage, how in the world do we see some drastic change in our climate from this action. It is ridiculous to assume that man can dial down a little on his carbon output and the result will be as turning down the thermostat on his A/C unit. THere are way too many factors that make up our climate and man is the smallest factor. Scientist were claiming "global cooling" only 30 or 40 years ago. Science, in the area of climate, is vague and assuming. However, a political movement highjacked the process and has financed some "paid for" research results that have no proof, but plenty of conclusions.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Tom....why be gullible? Of course, you should try to do your part to keep your environment clean. BUt, watch out for those who are trying to take your freedoms away. They are grabbing for power and could care less about "your" cause.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

You mean the "guys in the black helicopters?"


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

No...not the ones in the black helicopters, the ones who have made you look foolish as you sign on to their agenda and give your freedoms away. Shame on you. There is a sucker born every day. WHy would you trust such a drastic change in the way we produce energy, build cars, and run our economy on such a flimsy and unproven basis that our earth is "warming". ....and speaking of black helicopters, You are the one who has swallowed the "whopper" that our world is reaching its end unless we do something now. SUCKER!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

You know, it was not my intent to create a forum on this hub for name calling. I was hoping for something a bit more congenial and science based. Please take your diatribe elsewhere. In case you hadn't noticed HubPages is more congenial that a lot of other web forums. Name calling and expressing wild opinions without facts to back them up is frowned on. Bye.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I dont usually resort to name-calling....until you smarted off with the black-helicopter comment, writing me off as some whacko. I think you can read my other comments as congenial until that point. As for facts, there are none that pinpoint global warming to man made activity. You cannot just say that man produces carbon, therefore we are causing global warming. It is as insane as saying that if I jump into the ocean, I have raised the level of the Ocean. It is not noteworthy, nor is mans impact on the global climate which is almost primarily governed by the intensity of the sun.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Well there are a thousand climate scientists around the world who disagree with your beliefs. You are among an increasingly small number of global warming deniers. I suppose its possible that you are correct and thousands of scientists are wrong, but I doubt it.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 7 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

I'd like to respond to a couple of things braudboy said.  I think you've already covered them earlier, Ralph, but for passersby:

There is in fact a way to figure out how much of the warming we've observed over the past 30-40 years is caused by humans.  (The scientists call this the "attribution" problem.) It's a big job, but not only is it doable, it has been done and redone.

What you do is add up what we emit--a large accounting problem, but a straightforward concept.  You check this against direct measurements of the atmosphere. (For CO2 levels this has been done reliably since 1958; additionally, isotopic studies of the atmospheric CO2 show that an appreciable fraction of it must come from fossil (fuel) sources.)  You deduct the portions that are end up being absorbed by the oceans and biosphere.

You then use that number to calculate what amount of warming the known physical properties of CO2 will produce in the atmosphere.  Although the radiative transfer physics are complicated enough, basically this part (I gather) is just slogging through lengthy calculations.

But then you have to calculate the atmospheric response.  (This was first done in a more-or-less adequate way by Canadian-American physicist Gilbert Plass in 1956.  It turns out that you need to calculate the effects using a "layer-by-layer" approach or your results will be incorrect.) But this, too, has been extensively validated by now.

This gives you a "radiative forcing"--a measure of the radiative "push" administered by the CO2.  You then have to use that info to figure out how the climate system responds over time.

When you've done that, you compare what was predicted to what actually happened in the real world. Of course, that isn't easy either.  Measuring temperatures all around the globe consistently takes a lot of careful work, and so does reducing the data to a useable form.  Then there's the fact that other factors influence climate, like solar radiation, and these change.  So you have to take those into account, which means you need good data on solar output and such.

But the take-away is that all this has been done, validated, re-done and refined, over and over again. We know that solar changes aren't causing the warming, because we directly measure solar output. (And in fact, solar output has been down slightly for the last couple of years, which has partially offset the warming trend.)

Today, we know what we put into the atmosphere; it's increased the CO2 concentration by over 30%, and as far as we can tell, that's the highest concentration for millions of years.

We know what the physical results of these emissions are--a radiative imbalance, a condition where the Earth is (temporarily) taking in more energy than it emits.  (This is today measured directly by satellite sensors.)

And we know a lot about how this will change with time:  a doubling of CO2 (or equivalents in other greenhouse gases) will give approximately 3 degrees C of warming over time.

It is estimated on the basis of all available evidence that a reasonably safe limit of warming would be 2 C.  We can still make that target according to the White House report just released, and IMO we should bend every effort to do so.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Many thanks again, Doc. You know more about the subject than either I or BB.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Doc...come on! All of these calculations that you suggest we can do, we most certainly cannot do. These scientists have only created computer models, and these models will only do what they are designed to do. Climate cannot be reduced to some lab experiment. CO2 is only a small percentage of 'greenhouse' gases in our atmosphere and these greenhouse gases are only a small percentage of the total equation of climate temperatures. ..and your info is inaccurate. The sun is burning hotter than ever, and also, even with this event, climate temperatures have cooled over the past 3 or 4 years. These very same scientists were worried about "global cooling" just 25 years ago. THere science is only a theory and has not even come close to being proven. They cant even prove that warming is a bad thing. Also, there have been tests from studying ice that show that c02 is a result of warming and not a cause. There is much to learn here and we are jumping to quick conclusions only because of a political movement that is trying to grab power.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

What political movement is trying to grab power by promoting global warming issues?


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Are you seriously asking...as if you have not noticed the "white hot" promotion of this agenda in the political arena??? Ralph, you seem like an intelligent person.....how do you think this particular item has gained so much attention, over, say the past 5 years, and especially over the past year???

WHo took power in the past year?? The main reason that it has gained so much in popularity is that the political machine has cleverly coerced and convinced the "nonsuspecting and naïve" environmentalists and truly concerned citizenry that their plans are pure and their only intent is to clean up and save the world. Step back for a moment and think about what is really going on and what the implications are if there plans are enacted. They will not stop the so-called "pollution" of our earth. They will just be allowed to tax it and controll it. This is a huge power grab as almost everything emits CO2 (which is not a pollutant, by the way). Our country runs almost exclusively on coal-powered power plants and there is no way possible to change to another system to power our needs. So, we will not stop emmitting CO2, but rather we will enable our government to tax them, growing our government to enormous proportions at the expense of WHO??

There is much more to say here....you need to be careful of giving over your rights and freedoms to any bunch running Washington. This is not the original design of our politicians and they are way out of control in trying to run our lives. YOu will regret the decision to allow them to do so.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Before the end of his administration Bush finally accepted that something should be done about global warming. Exxon and British Petroleum ads are dueling over which company is "greener." The current dispute is focusing on what, how much, not whether to do something to prevent or forestall global warming. You are in what amounts to a fringe group. You may be right but the odds are against you.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I agree that the odds are against me. It is a very popular movement, but the people it is popular with will be very disappointed with the results. The people who are running this movement are only using those who truly care about the planet to get their agenda into place. Most companies have no choice but to sign on to this agenda if they want to stay in business. It is being shoved down their throats. BUt, if you look at what is really trying to get accomplished by those in power, it is only a money grab and a power grab and does not solve the so-called "global warming crisis". So, we will still be "polluting" our planet but the common man will be at the mercy of government for his energy needs, his lifestyle, his every move will now be under control of government. Your power bills will skyrocket, (a very clever way to get more money out of us without actually raising our taxes). They just tax the companies who then pass the cost on to us. THis is very far-reaching legislation being thrown around in Washington and you need to wake up to what they are proposing. They are selling you "save the world", but their actions are quite the opposite.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Here's a scary article from the June 29 New Yorker entitled "The Catastrophist" about James Hansen, director of NASA's Institute for Space Studies by Elizabeth Kolbert.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/29/0906...

"Hansen has now concluded, partly on the basis of his latest modelling efforts and partly on the basis of observations made by other scientists, that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he had suspected. Carbon dioxide isn't just approaching dangerous levels; it is already there. Unless immediate action is taken--including the shuddown of all the world's coal plants within the next two decades--the palnet will be committed to change on a scale society won't be able to cope with this. "this particular problem has become and emergency," Hansen said.

Speaking before a congressional committee last year, Hansen asserted that fossil-fuel companies were knowingly spreading misinformation about global warming and that their chairmen "should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." He has compared freight trains carrying coal to "death trains," and wrote to the head of the National Mining Association, who sent him a letter of complaint, that if the comparison "makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should."

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!

 


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

For BB:

PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 28, 2009

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

Next Article in Opinion (1 of 26) » A version of this article appeared in print on June 29, 2009, on page A21 of the New York edition. Past Coverage


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Ralph- I know Paul Krugman's view and that of the New York Times!  If this is your standard for news, then I understand your view on "GLobal Warming"

How on earth people can buy into the predicitions well into our future on climate temperatures, when we cant even accurately predict into next week or next month.  We cant predict hurrican seasons accurately or any thing that involves the factors that make up climate.  BUt it also makes their outragous claims hard to disprove also.  That is very convenient as the political machine moves forward to gobble up your freedoms and rights and money.  America has come a long way in developing its energy sources, and has relied mostly on coal because the idiotic environmentalists woud not allow the development of nuclear energy.  Now they have found a way to put a hold on the coal energy and are trying to force us into the solar and wind market.  These are very unreliable and not nearly as cost efficient.  Prepare to have your energy costs skyrocket.  It does not really accomplish anything toward less co2 emmissions, but it does accomplish a big government grab into our pocket books.  Congratulations.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Ralph, if I prove that the earth has warmed recently, could I not blame it on the internet, which has increased in activity over the past 10 or 15 years? YOu should not be so gullible. THere is no proof that man has caused "global warming". How do you ignore the pattern of thousands of years that the earth has entered and exited at least 2 ice ages. How do you accept that it is CO2 emmissions and not just normal fluctuations?. THese scientists cannot prove different but are only theorizing. You can take comfort in knowing that they have fooled many people and not just yourself. It is not my place to prove "non-global warming". They are the ones making accusations and it is easy to see their intentions and to see that their argument lacks heavily in proof. Do not give up your lifestyle on the flimsy evidence of those who are trying to change your life. You should be more protective of your lifestyle and not be so willing to hand it over to others.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Ralph, It was just reported in the local news that Hattiesburg,MS is on pace for record hot temperatures for June 2009. THey go on to say that there haven't been this many days with over 100 degrees temperature in 98 years. THe interesting part here, for people who are paying attention and not so easily buying into the hysteria of "man made global warming" is this.....Why did we have such hot temperatures 98 years ago which would be the year 1911. At this time man was certainly not nearly as advanced in his technoligical polluting of the earth. Man had no air conditioning or mass production of automobiles or any of the other activities that are being blamed on global warming. Does it not make you stop and think that maybe and even probably the earth just goes through fluctuations in climate temperatures and does not stay constant. This would mean that man has very little to do with it and those who are claiming so have some other agenda in mind.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Nope. What "other agenda?" Who?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Ten outrageous climate change claims here:

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=44458


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Ralph- I can appreciate that you are convinced of this scam. I see that you have no questions for them and are satisfied with this movement having your best interests at heart. There are so many holes in their studies and you just look the other way. Well, I cannot do so and I only hope enough concerned citizens will do the same and put a stop to the madness. How you cannot question the fact that we have on record much higher temperature readings from 98 years ago and the fact that the earth has fluctuated in and out of at least 2 ice ages is beyond me. I know it might cause some tensions in the circles you keep, but try reaching inside your intellect for some common reasoning and some skepticism for those who want to radically change our way of life. Dont just accept some clever marketing and slick advertising as truth. I have brought up some real points that shine light on their hyprocacy and all you can say is "nope" and "what other agenda"???

Here is a newsflash for you. THe earth's climate has always been a fluctuating event becoming hotter and colder. This is a proven fact. So, why do you want to look at the past 20 or 30 years and ignore the past hundreds and thousands of years of history. It makes no sense to me, but I am sure you have somehow made sense of it.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

As I pointed out earlier, the earth's climate at any given time is the product of a combination of naturally occurring fluctuations and, increasingly for the past 100 years or so, man-made green house gases. The natural fluctuations may accentuate the greenhouse effect, cancel it out or have no effect. There is nothing we can do about that. However, greenhouse gases are within our control and their effect on climate has been well established and accepted by virtually all scientists. Assuming the natural fluctuations are neutral or warming we are in for a major climate change in the next 50 to 100 years or so. It seems prudent to me to take steps to reduce CO 2 emissions before it's too late. You still haven't answered my question wrt just who you think is perpetrating what you believe to be a scam and what their motives are. It's absolutely clear who has been conspiring and propagandizing on the other side of the issue--big oil, most notably Exxon, the electric power industry, the coal industry and until recently the auto industry.


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

We just have one wonderful planet for us to live and we all have equal responsibility towards it. Why do some folks deny adverse climate change I simply can't understand?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Maybe Braudboy will get around to telling us.


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Ok then will wait for his response. :-)


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Concerns for the planet is a legitimate goal. What we have here is clearly a political movement that has absolutely nothing to do with "saving the planet".

It is a very arrogant statement to even claim that humans can destroy or have any control over our climate. It cannot be proven or disproven which is very convenient for the doomsday crowd who are crying for action. BUt, you dont have to look hard at the actions of those in charge to realize they are not trying to do anything except gain more control of our lives. ONce you have given up your freedoms you will not be able to get them back. THey are reversing the very technoligical advances we have achieved over the past 30 or 40 years. They are crippling the economy with a massive tax that does not reduce "green house" gases, but taxes the power companies that emit CO2. THese companies are regulated and will be allowed to pass the tax on to the consumers. Get ready for higher energy bills, higher gasoline prices, and pretty much higher prices on everything as everything is at least indirectly tied to energy. Sounds like a great plan to me...if you are an idiot.THe problem with too many environmentalists are that they are very gullible. All you have to do to get them on board is to say you want to help save the planet or reduce pollution or plant more trees, etc. Then you can sell them any plan that accomplishes nothing toward their goals, because you use all of the right "buzz" words. It is exactly what this administration has done and the "greenies' are going right along with it, totally blind to what the real actions or real agenda is.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Country women- instead of asking why people deny adverse climate change, You should ask why there are people who are claiming adverse climate change. You see, they are the ones who want to drastically change your life and you should be asking why???? Your naivete' is astounding! These "global warmers" are starting to see their "so called" scienctific finding fall apart around them. THe political machine is pushing hard to pass their legislation right now before they are totally exposed. The reality is that our climate is very sound and is a completely self sustaining system that functions in spite of whatever man can dish out. Whenever an ingredient of the climate formula increases, our climate has counter measures to bring the climate back into line. This is seen primarily thru water vapor as the earth is mostly made of water. THese "global warming scientists" have totally ignored this activity as they program their computer models to show doom for our planet. It is totally ridiculous that they have fooled so many people. THis planet has been around for at least thousands of years, if not millions of years. It is a self-sustaining, well functioning system and the only result of any actions done by these scoundrels will be to take away more of your freedoms and more of your hard-earned dollars as they grab for more power and influence in our daily lives. Go to globalwarminghoax.com for more info.

You need to be more sceptical of those who are proposing the drastic changes and not so doubting of those who are simply questioning their agenda.


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Braudboy- Yes I am naïve in so many things and maybe I am not totally informed. In my place (back in India) the weather pattern for rains has changed, people are affected by deforestation, the air quality has become deteriorated (due to pollution), water is harder to get by and so on.

About US are there any particular reasons why US doesn't want to be a signatory to Kyoto protocol?

Thanks for taking the time to explain.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

The U.S. has no interest in the Kyoto protocol as it is totally unfair in excluding India and China, the two most booming economies other than the U.S. and our main competitors in the world economy. TO sign on to this agreement would just allow these other countries to greatly surpass the U.S. and greatly harm our economy. THose are the main reasons, even if you buy into this global warming hoax. Once you factor in that man is not even effecting our global climate, it makes the whole thing totally ridiculous. Look, the U.S. is totally dependent on coal-fueled power plants, which emits CO2. There is nothing we can do about this. THe environmentalists pushed us in this direction 30 or more years ago when they rejected and blocked the development of nuclear powered energy plants because of their paranoia. NOw, they want to totally cripple our economy by demonizing our coal power plants. YOu cant make them happy until we turn the clock back 100 years to the unreliable energy sources of solar and wind. THis is a dangerous path that will weaken this country and make our energy costs skyrocket.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

The U.S. should be leading, not dragging its feet.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

The U.S. has been leading, economically and in wealth. The global warming madness should put an end to that.


Barbara Yurkoski profile image

Barbara Yurkoski 7 years ago

Endless debate about our role in climate change with people who are afraid of intervention is a waste of time. They will never change their minds no matter what the science says. We need to get on with reducing fossil fuel emissions before it's too late to turn back. Fortunately the consensus has turned that way, although we still have to deal with people who feel it's their right to damage the planet in order to have their fun and make their profits.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Barbara- you have been duped. THere is no damage to our planet, and you are willingly handing over your rights and freedoms to those who do not have your best interests in mind. ....and by the way fun and profit are not dirty words. You should try having fun and making profits, you will enjoy the results. Believe me when I tell you that those who are selling you "global warming" plan on doing both at your and my expense.


tomdhum profile image

tomdhum 7 years ago from memphis tn

Great posting comments of members of the U.S. Congress. Like to know what your thoughts are on the Clean Energy Bill 2454 that passed the House and now will go before the Senate. You can find a summary of the bill on my hub know your congressman. Again great hub!


braudboy profile image

braudboy 7 years ago from Long Beach, MS

What is obvious about the "global warming" movement is this. There is an agenda to promote certain technologies for energy that have totally failed in the "free market" arena. When left to their own devices they do not compare in price orperformance to the existing sources we have. The only way to get America to convert is to scare them through a totally exagerated and false premise that our current technologies are destroying the world's climate. This is ridiculous and the citizens of America should be very sceptical of their plans.


sabu singh profile image

sabu singh 7 years ago

Interesting and informative Hub,Ralph.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Thanks! A compliment from you means a lot.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

I'm no great fan of main stream media. However, anyone who takes the trouble to search a bit for sources outside MSM can get at the truth. However, few people bother or are able to do that and are misled as in the case of Vietnam, and our foolish and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

I've read quite a bit about climate change in MSM and elsewhere, and I'm convinced that prudence requires us to take steps to deal with it. I will take a look at some of your hubs.


Jimmy 7 years ago

Watch out for that hole in the Ozone! And the new Ice Age!

Oooops! Wrong Decade! My Bad.


Jimmy 7 years ago

Senator Debbie Stabenow says she can feel the global warming

when she is flying on a jet, way up in the atmosphere! AND she's a Real Life SENATOR!!!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Well, I don't think Senator Stabenow's comment is exactly a scientific observation, but I think her position on climate change is correct, i.e., that we should be doing something about it.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago Author

Sept. 25, 2009 | When eminent scientists, elected officials and diplomats of all political persuasions gather in Copenhagen in December to renew the worldwide effort against catastrophic climate change, there will be at least one discordant voice in the house. Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated," has vowed to bring the conservative message of doubt, in person, to Climate Conference 2009.

No doubt Inhofe's appearance will embarrass the Obama administration and irritate environmentalists, just as the eccentric Oklahoman intends. But nobody will be more frustrated and perplexed than the European conservatives who are hosting the conference in Denmark and whose governments in Germany, Sweden and France have made the most sustained progress toward the energy and carbon reduction goals set out in the original Kyoto agreement. Those leaders cannot understand why their ideological comrades in the United States refuse to acknowledge the gravity of the problem -- and insist that "conservatism" is synonymous with freedom to pollute and ruin.

The division between American and European conservatives over climate change came up during the Clinton Global Initiative's meeting in New York City this week, when Danish environmental minister Connie Hedegaard, who is overseeing preparations for the Copenhagen conference, met with former President Bill Clinton. A leader of the Conservative People's Party, which shares power in Denmark as part of the ruling coalition, Hedegaard has complained bluntly about the obstructions erected by Republicans in the U.S. Congress. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Clinton agreed -- and suggested that Hedegaard bring her message of conservative environmentalism directly to her American counterparts. Joe Conason in Salon 9-25-09


wildstuff 6 years ago


Jimmy 6 years ago

I guess Man Made Global Warming must be what caused the Glaciers to recede 10,000 years ago! All those pesky Caveman campfires. Why else would the Danes and Clintons be so worried??? And then there's Al Gore! No reason to believe he would have ANY nefarious or personally beneficial reasons to promote man made global warming. He's a Genuine Former Vice President of the USA!!!!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Jimmy, More than 95 percent of the scientists believe that global climate change is an urgent concern. Your comment indicates that you are not well informed on the subject. I suggest you do a little reading up on the subject from legitimate sources rather than ignorant political crapola that's circulating on the Internet.


tksensei profile image

tksensei 6 years ago

Deliberately destroying the US economy while China and India offset any potential benefits - which are uncertain in any case - is a bad idea for everyone.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Wrong. The U.S. should be leading the way instead of dragging its feet. China and India have both recognized the issue and starting to take action. Your view is that of a small minority. The economy will benefit from green energy projects.


Jimmy 6 years ago

Well Ralph, the truth is that the majority of us in the science community used to be vocally against Man Made Climate Change. But, after seeing our research grants threatened or cancelled many of us had to(were forced to) change our "Tunes"

to be in line with the POLITICAL Forces with the purse strings. THAT'S THE REAL TRUTH! We have families and bills, just like everyone else. If you want to be a rube for a bunch of Ex-Hippies with less than noble motives, that's your right.


Jimmy 6 years ago

Posting articles from the New Yorker or Salon.com gives absolutely no credibility to or against Climate Anything!

One might as well sight articles from the Huffington Post or TMZ.com


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Well, Jimmy, feel free to post any information that you consider more reliable. I've found the science articles in the NYTimes and other general publications quite helpful. Also, please feel free to refrain from name calling. We try to keep our discussions friendly and factual in HubPages. Thanks for your comments. Just curious, what are your scientific credentials? If you are a global warming denier, please support your position. Calling me a "rube for a bunch of Ex-Hippies with less than noble motives" doesn't advance the disucssion, and doesn't sound very scientific for a member of the "science community."


Jimmy 6 years ago

Ralph, I missed the memo by the "science community" as to the correct way to respond like a "scientist" and the memo that explained that you are an authority on such responses. My Bad.

Here's a sample of what real scientists(not former Vice Presidents or Keith Olbermann)are up against!

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/0...


tksensei profile image

tksensei 6 years ago

"The economy will benefit from green energy projects. "

Mabye, hopefully, theoretically, and years after economic devastation would have harmed people all over the world.

Great thinking.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Jimmy, if you peruse this Hub you will see that I linked the Boston Globe article about M.I.T.'s global warming skeptic, Lindzen three years ago. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I'm not a scientist and that my opinions about climate change are based mainly on reports in the main stream media. You criticize my opinions because of this, and then you cite an three-year-old article from the Boston Globe. As a scientist I'm sure you can do better than this. And BTW, I seem to recall that Lindzen has more recently modified his views on climate somewhat. I'll see if I can find something on that.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Here's an interesting link on Professor Lindzen that says he was on the payroll of oil companies while he was speaking out against global warming.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Here's an analysis of the scientific consensus wrt global warming.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus....

Looks to me like Jimmy's way out in right field.


Jimmy 6 years ago

So you say the Professor was in the pocket of big oil. but when I say that Man Made Global Warming Advocates are in it for the money or some other less than noble reason, I'm in right field. So only people that are anti-global warming have

shady motives??? The believers are clean....non-believers like me are unclean.

Do you think Prof Lindzen changed his tune because of hard scientific facts? Dream on. The threat of black balling and revocation of funds does strange things to people.

My colleagues and I have been "talked to" by the Board of Regents 3 times in the past, to make sure we didn't report anything that would upset the "Donors"(politicians/corporations). I would be subject to departmental discipline if I could be linked to commenting about Global Warming on a public forum.

A very small percentage, of which I believe includes you, have real honest concern for the Planet. The majority are working some angle of personal benefit. I submit my data and look the other way as the "Donors" twist the data in their favor because I have a family to support. Until I can afford to be a Whistle Blower, I'm part of the problem!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

I didn't say that Lindgren was in the pocket of oil companies. The author of the article said:

Does Lindgren have any conflicts of interest?

Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institute which is also funded by Exxon Mobil. His connections to the oil, coal, and even tobacco industry are apparently rather extensive. Here is one listof many that is worth exploring. Richard Lindzen claims he is currently not recieving any handouts from oil companies.

Lindzen also has a habit of disagreeing with other people. According to SEED magazine: "His former graduate students describe him as fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak." One of Lindzens own MIT students, Kirk-Davidoff, has said "If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don't always agree with the consensus," "You show you're right and everyone else is wrong. He certainly enjoys showing he's right and everyone else is wrong, If you have a ten minute conversation with him, you can tell that."

Receiving $2500/day from EXXON and coal fired power companies might cast a bit of doubt on Lindgren's objectivity, don't you think.

I'm not aware of any similar motives attributable to the scientists who are saying we should be concerned about global warming. If you are aware of any such "shady" motives please tell us about them.

Lindgren doesn't have to worry about being upbraided by M.I.T. for commenting on global warming because he is a tenured professor of climate science and is therefore expected to comment and publish on the subject. However, in making his comments he, in my opinion, is obligated to disclose the payments from oil and coal companies. I don't know whether he did this or not. I don't doubt what you are saying about your situation. However, it strikes me as curious that the regents of your university would be discouraging honest, informed, factual commentary on any subject of public interest.


Jimmy 6 years ago

That's the problem Ralph. It strikes too many people curious that appointed or elected officials would act in that manner.

People are too trusting of officials and media types.

He who pays the piper names the tune. You don't play the tune, you no longer get paid. Ever wonder why K Street has so many "think tanks" and "lobbyist"? Honest, informed and factual commentary RARELY exists. It's bent or scrubbed by the payer.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Well, I don't disagree about the person who's paying the piper calling the tune. Some call more reasonable tunes than others. My impression is that most colleges and universities respect the right of professors to express themselves on most any subject so long as they make it clear that they aren't speaking on behalf of the university. Speaking of the piper calling the tune, I guess your interpretation means that EXXON and the coal and coal fired power industries are or were calling Lindzen's tune on global climate change???


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Lindsay Graham and John Kerry agree on need for climate change legislation:

CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.

However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.

NYTimes Op-ed 10-11-09


Jimmy 6 years ago

Of course Lindzen played Exxon's tune! That's my point. Just as you played the NLRB's tune or the State of Michigan's tune.

Unless someone is directly involved with the behind the scenes science of Climate Change, a person can only rely on what they read and they usually interpret what they read based on their Political Leanings.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Are you involved with the "behnind the scenes science of climate change?" Quite a lot of information is available on it, nearly all of it suggesting there is cause for concern. Why don't you write a Hub stating your position?

Thanks for your comments!


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 6 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Ralph, thanks for keeping this valuable hub coming to us!

I'm a bit bemused by the notion of "behind-the-scenes science," as the heart of the process is publication. But perhaps Jimmy just made an unfortunate choice of words.

As to my two cents, I'd throw out the fact--not all that widely reported, but in the public record--that we have had a number of temperature records set this summer, even as most of Eastern North America remains fairly cool. Among others, we've had record high sea surface temperatures for three months this summer--notable as the oceans are the biggest heat reservoir by far--as well as the warmest temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere. Globally, September was the second-warmest ever.

And all this despite the quiet sun--currently in a prolonged solar minimum unprecedented in the modern observational era--which slightly reduces the energy coming into the Earth's atmosphere.

Yet some keep trying to tell us the planet is cooling. It's really astonishing.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 6 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

I meant to add that it is refreshing to see Lindsey Graham come around. He is conservative, but not such a prisoner of ideology as to be just out of touch with reality.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, Doc. It's good to get a little positive feedback.


Jimmy 6 years ago

I encourage all to see the Documentary -Not Evil, Just Wrong-

It's by the Journalist that had his questions evaded and his microphone cut off by Al Gore.

http://www.kxmd.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=45140...

We are passing this one around the lab. It's riveting!


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 6 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Well, Jimmy's link went to a story on the court ruling which seemed to me a tad one-sided. Here's the other side:

"Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

"In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

"The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law...


Jimmy 6 years ago

Did you see the film Doc? If Al Gore is all about the TRUTH, why did he refuse to be interviewed for the film?

If he believes he is so on track, why does he continue to refuse to debate his findings in public?

The filmmakers also interviewed one of Gore's top scientific advisors, climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University and the IPCC. In the 1970s, Schneider warned of an immanent and devastating manmade ice age, but now he preaches immanent and devastating manmade global warming. After the interview, Schneider withdrew permission and Stanford University lawyers threatened the filmmakers not use their footage. However, they can legally reveal what he said, so they do.

Why would a Scientist of Schneider's Stature do that???

I had to defend and stand debate on my Masters and Doctorate. We have a gag order on most of our climate research because the people paying for it want to spin the results to their purpose. So, is it out of the question that the Amazing Al Gore might be doing some spinning???


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Jimmy, is it possible that your obvious dislike of

Al Gore is influencing your views on climate change? Ad hominem comments aren't very scientific. Gore is a layman, not a scientist. Does it surprise you that there were some scientific errors in his movie? "Some errors" or exaggerations do not mean that his conclusion that we should be doing something about climate change is wrong. Moreover scientific findings on climate are evolving and changing quite frequently.

Who were the "people paying for your climate research?"

Why don't you sign up and do a Hub expressing your views and scientific information?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Another downside of coal-fired electric power plants--scrubbers installed to reduce air pollution cause waste water pollution of our drinking water.

But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?...


Jimmy 6 years ago

Ralph, I'm going to assume you know what I meant when I said we have a gag order on our research. You might also remember my posting about being subject to disciplinary action for talking about it on public forums. I was NOT joking or trying to trick anyone. I simply get frustrated when people continue to think there is freedom of info on ALL research projects and that no spinning goes on by Democrats and Republicans or "Special Interests Groups".

Al Gore presents himself as an AUTHORITY on Climate Change.

The 9 mistakes were made by Gore's Scientists, not by Gore.

Many average Joes believe Al simply because he's a Democrat, just as many Joes disagree simply because they are Republicans.

My main complaint is that too many people believe or don't believe in Man Made Global Warming simply because of the "authoritative sources" they get their info from. I'm asking people on this forum to consider that many Public/Private Entities and Politicians have less than noble reasons for being Pro/Against Climate Change!

Can't a scientist have or not have a personal dislike. Scientists are Human Beings too. There's no on/off switch.

I'm grateful you allowed my comments on your forum. You seem to be a fair gentleman and the others here seem to have genuine concerns as well. I'll leave this as my last post, but would like to stop by occasionally to read your comments. Thanks again Mr. Deeds!

Sincerely,

Jimmy -Scientist and Human Being-


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Well, if you did a Hub you wouldn't have to use your real name. I'm sure HubPages wouldn't reveal your identity unless ordered to do so by a court.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

As world leaders struggle to hash out a new global climate deal by December, they face a hurdle perhaps more formidable than getting big polluters like the United States and China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: how to pay for the new accord. NYTimes, 10-14-09


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 6 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Money is always one of the toughies, isn't it?

I was also intrigued by today's update, the story about reducing methane emissions. It really does seem, as one of the sources said, like a "no-brainer." Even more so--and they don't mention this in the story--since the major breakdown product of methane in the atmosphere is in fact CO2. (So not only do you get the 10-year period of intense greenhouse activity from the methane, you also get the less-intense but much longer-term effect from the CO2.)

Coincidentally, I just published a Hub summarizing and reviewing David Archer's book "The Long Thaw," which is a real trove of accurate up-to-date information on the science related to this problem. It has a lot about CO2's residence time in the atmosphere. For those interested, see:

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Long-Thaw-A-Revi


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, I'll read it.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

WASHINGTON — Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20...


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

I thought the label changed form global warming to climate change.

Everything is a crisis today. I have been hearing stuff for the last 35 years of my life. The gas shortage in the 70' was the biggest farce I had ever seen, which was at the beginning of this whole thing.

Keep on hubbing!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

I'll change it if it'll make you a believer!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

The video just added to this hub is dedicated to jiberish, tex, and all the other Fox fans on HubPages.


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

Yes Ralph, I am that shallow, change the name and I will believe it. Thank you.

Thank you for dedicating it to us. I noticed almost everything came from the liberal NY times. Wow talk about bias.

I want truth not this garbage all of the alarmist crap that is being placed on us. Al Gore is one of those big money guys you guys hate so much, but you guys are too blinded to see. Al is in it for the money. I want all around facts, and most of the facts presented by the alarmist are one sided and not true. Everything is a crisis and the democrats use it for manipulating legislature. This is their mode of operation. Let's slow it down and get it right!

Keep on hubbing!


MNichopolis profile image

MNichopolis 6 years ago from Massachusetts

Just two questions; First, how much of the arctic ice (and aforementioned glaciers) melted in the last interglacial period? (Answer: all of the ice) Second, What are the chances that like the last 5-10 ice ages or so, it is all melting again right now? (Answer 100%)

Get used to natural climate change - embrace it... it stressed mammal populations a couple hundred thousand years ago and forced the evolution of you didnt it?? Just don't scam us to buy your flourescent bulbs, expensive electric cars, pay your energy company more for smart grids, solar panels, and windmills that big corporations with doe skin briefcase lobbyists like GE are trying to sell...

Oh and good hub, bumps up on the feedback bro. :)


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks for your comment.

The scientists aren't denying "natural" climate change. They are just saying that IN ADDITION TO natural change man made factors should also be considered because they are warming the earth. Natural factors could accentuate this warming effect, neutralize it, or bring on a new ice age. Nobody can predict with certainty what the "natural" forces will do because these "cycles" have not been regular.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

The Lord Monckton quoted in the Baldwin piece is borderline looney tunes, in my opinion.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 6 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

I'd agree with you, Ralph--Monckton is way, way out there. From the "Nobel Laureate" claim, to the "won the Falklands war" claim, to the manipulated "Curry (sic) & Clow" graph, to this latest piece, he has earned quite a reputation as the "potty peer" of the climate debate.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

I exchanged a few emails with him a couple of years ago, and he signed his "Moncton of Brenchley" which struck me as a little bit phony. Here's one of my replies in which I responded in kind:

"Dear "Moncton of Brenchley:

"You purport to be objective but your report based on your so-called "research" is blatantly one sided. You have allied yourself with the forces of darkness and evil.

"Deeds of Birmingham"


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Gore criticized for his investments in green technology.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Congress is unlikely, this year or next, to establish the “cap and trade” system for curbing carbon emissions that Mr. Obama and party leaders seek. Nor are world leaders at a climate conference in Copenhagen next month likely to strike a concrete deal to limit emissions in the name of curbing global warming.


Transparency??? 6 years ago



Transparency??? 6 years ago

Why let Facts get into the way of a good Political Agenda?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

RRS, thanks for the link!

Trans, thanks for the comment and link!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Obama is going to propose greenhouse emissions target before Copenhagen meeting next month.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 6 years ago from Queensland Australia

Reduction in Carbon emissions and other poluutants needs a multifaceted aproach. Here is one of several that is on offer. http://hubpages.com/politics/4th-Generation-Nuclea...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, for the link to your excellent Hub on nuclear power.


Michael E. Mann 6 years ago

Mann, in an effort to defend the indefensible, told the New York Times, “scientists often use the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ Yeah…right!

There is a boatload of damning evidence about concealing information that does not coincide with the gospel according to Al Gore.

Jones went so far as to encourage Mann to delete e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report.

The rats are scrambling big-time. Jones told Mann, Professor Malcolm Hughes at University of Arizona

and Professor Raymond Bradley of UMass/Amherst, “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” Too late pal!

Another co-conspirator at CRU, Professor Tim Osborn, was told by Mann to hide data because it supports critics of global warming.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause. NYTimes 12-01-09


jiberish profile image

jiberish 6 years ago from florida

Wow Ralph, I'm impressed at the amount of work put into this Hub, you have outdone yourself on this one Kudos. It's a bit longer than you usual writtings. I'm flattered that you would think of me. Ralph by now you know that I'm all about following the money on most 'Changes' so I would like to post my humble link here as well.

http://hubpages.com/politics/Media-Chaos-and-Hidde...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Europe Bypassed on Climate Summit

BRUSSELS — No political entity has pushed harder for the Copenhagen conference on climate change to succeed than the European Union.

But just days before the opening of the United Nations-sponsored meeting, the Europeans have been largely pushed to the sidelines, watching as the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, seek to set the rules of the game.

NYTimes 12-1-09


stendek profile image

stendek 6 years ago from Pellucidar

Exceptional. Keep up great work! Always seek truth. Peace. ++STENDEK++


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

India staked out its early position on Thursday by announcing that it would slow the growth of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, while also leaving open the possibility of taking bolder steps if an “equitable” deal can be reached during the negotiations.

NYTimes 12-3-09


Transparency??? 6 years ago


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Elitism? Why would you say that? Because the participants came by plane with limos from the airport? You sound like a global warming denier.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

COPENHAGEN — Delegates to the international climate talks accelerated their negotiations on Wednesday, racing among the booths and offices of countries large and small, comparing competing “nonpapers” — sections of the proposed text with no official existence — in the quest to hash out a realistic draft of a new climate agreement by the weekend. NYTimes 12-9-09


Transparency??? 6 years ago

No Ralph! Elitism = Do as I say....Not as I do crowd.

I don't know about you, but I don't shout at someone when I'm asking them to stop shouting! Get it??? Not sure? Here's another example: Auto Execs traveling separately on private jets with their hands out for a taxpayer bailout. Haut Monde.


Biggerfish2fry 6 years ago



Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

COPENHAGEN — In the hall outside the United States promotional pavilion at the climate talks, with crowds watching President Obama on video screens as he gave his Nobel Peace Prize speech and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar giving a press briefing inside, a polar bear rearing on hind legs gave a stern warning to the president to make sure an agreement is produced when he comes here late next week. NYTimes 12-10-09


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Biggerfish, Do you think it's possible or probable that climate is influenced BOTH by solar events AND man-made greenhouse gases? Seems to me it's not an either/or issue.


Transparency??? 6 years ago

Ralph.....seems that Jimmy guy might know something about the behind the scenes Tom Foolery with "Climate Change" research.

By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).

But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."

The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science.

View Full Image

michaels

Martin Kozlowski

michaels

michaels

That can no longer be the case. The alliance of scientists at East Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias it.

A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. One of the papers, published in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), was a meta-analysis of dozens of "paleoclimate" studies that extended back 1,000 years. They concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the last millennium.

In fact, that period, known as the "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP), was generally considered warmer than the 20th century in climate textbooks and climate compendia, including those in the 1990s from the IPCC.

Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous "hockey stick" article in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent "Little Ice Age" (a cold period from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century), leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note.

Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn't like a paper I published in Climate Research in 2002. It said human activity was warming surface temperatures, and that this was consistent with the mathematical form (but not the size) of projections from computer models. Why? The magnitude of the warming in CRU's own data was not as great as in the models, so therefore the models merely were a bit enthusiastic about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," he wrote in one of the emails. "We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People who didn't toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones's line began to experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.

This happened to me and to the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer, who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest. Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has disappeared from the scientific scene.

GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that one of the editors was "in the skeptics camp." He emailed Michael Mann to say that "if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official . . . channels to get him ousted."

Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that "It's one thing to lose 'Climate Research.' We can't afford to lose GRL." In this context, "losing" obviously means the publication of anything that they did not approve of on global warming.

Soon the suspect editor, Yale's James Saiers, was gone. Mr. Mann wrote to the CRU's Phil Jones that "the GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there."

It didn't stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that "If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."

Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009, wrote that he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap" out of me at a scientific meeting. He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost primary warming data.

The result of all this is that our refereed literature has been inestimably damaged, and reputations have been trashed. Mr. Wigley repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to "skeptics" (or even nonskeptics like me), because they didn't publish enough in the peer-reviewed literature—even as he and his friends sought to make it difficult or impossible to do so.

Ironically, with the release of the Climategate emails, the Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley have dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions. The EPA claimed to rely solely upon compendia of the refereed literature such as the IPCC reports, in order to make its finding of endangerment from carbon dioxide. Now that we know that literature was biased by the heavy-handed tactics of the East Anglia mob, the EPA has lost the basis for its finding.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, transparency, for your interesting comment. My impression, as a non-scientist, is that the prevailing view or "conventional wisdom" is that "climategate" didn't invalidate the conclusioln of the majority of the scientific community that anthromorphic contributions to climate change are real and merit concern. Moreover, aside from climate effects there are other reasons (health effects, strategic concerns over oil dependence) for limiting carbon emissions. What is your opinion?


MFB III profile image

MFB III 6 years ago from United States

Modern day hitler henchmen?? Trying to coax us all into a massive gas chamber of toxicity, by telling us everything is gonna be alright, we're just getting a shower and it might be a little warm. If we took all of the mercury out of fish, the ball it would make would most likely dwarf the washinton monument. It is all about greed, they are paid big bucks to keep the oil, gas and coal companies pumping out poisons daily, as well as pumping cash into their campaign funds in nefarious ways. I hope I can live long enough to see Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck choke to death on their own words, when they're overweight flesh compresses their lungs to sponges, while they are trying desperately to suck at air that no loneger exist. from blowhards to suck hards just to survive...lol~~MFB III


Transparency? 6 years ago

Himalayan glaciers!!! Danny Glover! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!!


Transparency? 6 years ago

Not much activity around this hub lately....I wonder why???

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Harper's February 2010 "Conning the Climate: Inside the Carbon Trading Shell Game":

Carbon trading is now the fastest-growing commodities market on earth. Since 2005, when major greenhouse-gas polluters among the Kyoto signatories were issued caps on their emissions and permitted to buy credits to meet those caps, there have been more than $300 billion worth of carbon transactions. Major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Barclays, and Citibank now host carbon-trading desks in London; traders who once speculated on oil and gas are betting on the most insidious side effects of our fossil fuel–based economy. Over the next decade, if President Obama and other advocates can institute a cap-and-trade system in the United States, the demand for carbon credits could explode into a $2 to $3 trillion market, according to the market-analysis firm Point Carbon.

Under the cap-and-trade system, industries regulated by it—the largest being power generation, chemicals, steel, and cement—are given limits on their total emissions, and companies can purchase emission reductions from others in lieu of reducing emissions themselves. Already, European companies buy and trade their credits frequently under parameters established by the European Union, which assigns a baseline emissions level to major industries as well as future limits they have to meet. The measurement of reductions is relatively straightforward, based on readings from meters installed at regulated power stations and manufacturing facilities.

But Kyoto also allows companies to purchase “offsets,” credits from emissions-reducing projects in developing countries. Such projects, which currently account for as much as a third of total tradable credits, are overseen not by the E.U. but by the United Nations. In this way, more than 300 million credits—each representing the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon dioxide—have been generated. (If cap-and-trade in the United States were to become reality along the lines of proposals now before Congress, up to 2 billion of the new credits would be drawn from carbon offsets, potentially increasing the worldwide supply of such credits by a factor of seven.) Whole new careers are blossoming: “carbon developers,” many of them employed by large multinational firms, travel the world in search of carbon-reduction projects to sell, while carbon accountants, such as SGS’s Talita Beck, are paid to affirm that those reductions are real.


jiberish profile image

jiberish 6 years ago from florida

Global warming is a great stock market trick. Your article says that wind power supplies 2% of our energy, my little kitchen solar panel provides more than that. Have you been to China lately, talk about pollution. I haven't known you to be a conspiracy advocate till now. :)


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Audi Green Diesel Best Commercial at the Superbowl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq58zS4_jvM


Transparency? 6 years ago

Looks like that Jimmy guy might be right! Phil Jones gets honest???

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks for the link. The fiasco at East Anglia is a significant setback for the global warming scientists. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

2-15-10 Currently, a few errors –and supposed errors– in the last IPCC report (“AR4?) are making the media rounds – together with a lot of distortion and professional spin by parties interested in discrediting climate science. Time for us to sort the wheat from the chaff: which of these putative errors are real, and which not? And what does it all mean, for the IPCC in particular, and for climate science more broadly?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

NYTimes Editorial 2-17-09

With Stakes This High

Published: February 17, 2010

Disclosures of isolated errors and exaggerations in the 2007 report from the United Nations panel on climate change do not undermine its main finding: that the planet has been warming gradually for more than a century and that human activity is largely responsible. But the misstatements have handed climate skeptics a public relations boost.


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 6 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

The Daily Mail story linked above distorts what Dr. Jones said (deliberately so, in my opinion.) Asked whether the warming was statistically significant, he said that it just missed the 95% confidence level which is the standard. He added that significance is not necessarily to be expected over as short a time as 15 years.

The story distorts this when it states there is no warming over that time; the reality is that we are 90% sure there was!

To read the original BBC item, Google "Jones BBC Q & A."


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Doc Snow, I agree. Thanks. Here's a link to the BBC Q & A--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

A Small Price for a Large Benefit

By ROBERT H. FRANK

Published: February 20, 2010

FORECASTS involving climate change are highly uncertain, denialists assert — a point that climate researchers themselves readily concede. The denialists view the uncertainty as strengthening their case for inaction, yet a careful weighing of the relevant costs and benefits supports taking exactly the opposite course.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it. Al Gore in the NYTimes 2-27-10

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.h...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

NYTimes 3-30-10

The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal liberals.

Multimedia

Video

Weather Forecasters on Global Warming

Comment Post a Comment

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.

Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns. More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

US Oil Company Donated Millions to Climate Sceptic Groups, Says Greenpeace

Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'

by John Vidal

A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.

The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.

[Greenpeace has identified Kansas-based oil firm Koch Industries as a multimillion funder of climate sceptic groups. (Photograph: David McNew/Getty images)]Greenpeace has identified Kansas-based oil firm Koch Industries as a multimillion funder of climate sceptic groups. (Photograph: David McNew/Getty images)

Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.

More:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/30-5

In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving ice fields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt, a government researcher said Wednesday.

Warmer temperatures have reduced the number of named glaciers in the northwestern Montana park to 25, said Dan Fagre, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. He warned that the rest of the glaciers may be gone by the end of the decade.

"When we're measuring glacier margins, by the time we go home the glacier is already smaller than what we've measured," Fagre said.

From the Himalayas to Alaska, glacier melting has accelerated in recent decades as global temperatures increased. The melt-off shows the climate is changing, Fagre said.

The park's glaciers have been slowly melting since about 1850, when the centuries-long Little Ice Age ended. They once numbered as many as 150, and 37 of those glaciers eventually were named.

A glacier needs to be 25 acres to qualify for the title.

If it shrinks any smaller, it does not always stop moving right away. A smaller mass of ice on a steep slope would continue to grind its way through the mountains but eventually disappears.

The latest two to fall below the 25-acre threshold were Miche Wabun and Shepard. Each had shrunk by roughly 55 percent since the mid-1960s. The largest remaining glacier in the park is Harrison Glacier, at about 465 acres.

Smaller glaciers and warmer temperatures could lower stream flows, which in turn prompt fishing restrictions and hobble whitewater rafting businesses, said Denny Gignoux, who runs an outfitting business in West Glacier. Tourism is a $1 billion-a-year industry in the area.

The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Resources Defense Council released a report Wednesday highlighting the threat to tourism of fewer glaciers. The report included an analysis of weather records that showed Glacier was 2 degrees hotter on average from 2000 to 2009, compared with 1950 to 1979.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/08/MNIO1CR1UU.DTL#ixzz0kWyxuxtN


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Here's a link to a must read article on the economics of dealing with global climate change by Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Econo...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

National Academy of Sciences Urges Climate Action

In its most comprehensive study so far, the nation’s leading scientific body declared on Wednesday that climate change is a reality and is driven mostly by human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/science/earth/20...


JWestCattle profile image

JWestCattle 6 years ago from Texas

I've just had a look at this so-called most comprehensive study ever, and it was only worth a quick scan of example chapters of their bogus brilliance.

I found not one bit of new/original research that provides evidentiary support for climate change. It is nothing but a compilation and regurgitation with spin focused on forcing/supporting the United States to implement a carbon tax.

And clearly it conveniently was released to provide timely pseudo-support for passage of a cap and trade bill.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

You should stick to something you know something about like grass fed beef. :-)


SEM Pro profile image

SEM Pro 6 years ago from North America

Exceptionally well compiled Ralph!!! Don't believe worry accomplishes anything productive but making everyone aware is a huge step toward taking action. Some have said BP's recent disaster may have actually tapped into those emissions. Tough to tell if the dolphins, fish and birds are bleeding from inside from that or the more toxic "solution" to break up the oil. BP's priority, as usual, was the bottom line for them and I'm sure they were more than a little glad when it hit the courts for an excuse and reprieve from unproductivity. They didn't have a solution for prevention, yet everyone is looking to them to come up with one now - ridiculously futile - clearly they don't care. I believe you are suggesting the people take back control and I totally agree. It depresses me to see how few are willing to change a few minor habits toward less consumption and more synergistic self-sufficiency. There is a group now, growing exponentially like wildfire, able to make a huge difference with new bio-energetic technological advances, perhaps we can only hope to reach and touch one at a time for change. Personally, I believe until we join forces en masse for dramatic change implementations, its all a little too little, too late. Not to leave this comment on a note without hope, we're fanning the flames for the wildfire and most who join our team, all have an extreme sense of urgency!

Thank you for writing this exceptional call to action through awareness - I will direct as many as I can to it!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks for your comment! The ignorance and dogmatic denial wrt global climate change is discouraging.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

NYTimes 7-8-10

A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.

But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Greenland Ice Sheet Faces 'Tipping Point in 10 Years'

Scientists warn that temperature rise of between 2C and 7C would cause ice to melt, resulting in 23ft rise in sea level

by Suzanne Goldenberg

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/11-1


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Pakistan, the country is actually on the verge of a critical shortage of fresh water. And water scarcity is not only a worry for Pakistan’s population — it is a threat to America’s national security as well.

NYTimes op-ed 8-16-10


jiberish profile image

jiberish 6 years ago from florida

I'm sick of reading about Global Warmin, it's natural Climate Change, natural being the operative word. It's an exaggerated crisis to pass more laws and more taxes. Yes, we should control the amount of pollution, but Ralph, the World is not comming to an end!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Good to hear from you jiberish. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should keep an open mind and read up on it a bit. Do you also believe President Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

NYTimes 8-31-10

The United Nations needs to revise the way it manages its assessments of climate change, with the scientists involved more open to alternative views, more transparent about possible conflicts of interest and more careful to avoid making policy prescriptions, an independent review panel said Monday.

Enlarge This Image

Attila Kisbenedek/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A review has been interpreted as hinting that Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of a climate change panel, step down.

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

* Post a Comment »

* Read All Comments (81) »

The review panel also recommended that the senior officials involved in producing the periodic assessments serve in their voluntary positions for only one report — a statement interpreted to suggest that the current chairman of the climate panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, step down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations....


Doc Snow profile image

Doc Snow 6 years ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

Hi, Ralph, it's been a while since I've stopped by. I'm glad to see that you've dealt with the UAC report. Some have tried to "spin" it a bit as well, but the recommendations seem basically, well, sensible suggestions to improve a working organization, not some kind of "judgement."

Should be some interesting climate-related stories coming along soon; sea-ice minimum is coming soon, and will be at least the 3rd-lowest ever by extent, probably 2nd-lowest by area. So much for hopes of the "recovery" we heard so much about earlier this year. There's also an international conference about developing a way to make all weather stations useable for climate monitoring this month at Cambridge. And it will be very interesting to see how global temperatures develop as the El Nino earlier this year recedes further into the past; some denialists are predicting a dramatic cooling, but I suspect that's not in the cards.

Then there's the politics. . . but I'm not sure I want to go there!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Doc, tnx for your comment. Speaking of politics, there was an excellent recent New Yorker article about all the mischief oil billionaire David Koch and his brother have caused wrt climate and a variety of other subjects. They have spent more than Exxon on climate change denial propaganda.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

The Vanishing Islands--NPR Website

Climate change is one of the major topics of discussion at the U.N. General Assembly this week. In a few small island countries, it's not some abstract, far-off concept: it's reality. The Seychelles Islands, for example, are sinking. The series of about 115 islands in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Kenya, has been compared to the Garden of Eden. It's already seen the world's worst coral die-off and was mostly underwater after the 2004 tsunami. Some on the archipelago argue it will be completely submerged in 50 to 100 years. Seychelles' ambassador to the United Nations, Ronald Jumeau, talks about the immediate effects of climate change, and what his country is doing to prepare.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

NYTimes 10-21-10--Global Warming Skepticism in the Tea Party

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

NYTimes--11-14-10 Glaciers melt, seas rise.

Scientists long believed that the collapse of the gigantic ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years, with sea level possibly rising as little as seven inches in this century, about the same amount as in the 20th century.

But researchers have recently been startled to see big changes unfold in both Greenland and Antarctica.

As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100 — an increase that, should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.

And the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet, which would put thousands of square miles of the American coastline under water and would probably displace tens of millions of people in Asia.

The scientists say that a rise of even three feet would inundate low-lying lands in many countries, rendering some areas uninhabitable. It would cause coastal flooding of the sort that now happens once or twice a century to occur every few years. It would cause much faster erosion of beaches, barrier islands and marshes. It would contaminate fresh water supplies with salt.

In the United States, parts of the East Coast and Gulf Coast would be hit hard. In New York, coastal flooding could become routine, with large parts of Queens and Brooklyn especially vulnerable. About 15 percent of the urbanized land in the Miami region could be inundated. The ocean could encroach more than a mile inland in parts of North Carolina.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14...


GladYaMetMe! 5 years ago


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

The United Nations climate change conference began with modest aims and ended early Saturday with modest achievements. But while the measures adopted here may have scant near-term impact on the warming of the planet, the international process for dealing with the issue got a significant vote of confidence.

Villagers rebuilt an embankment last year after Cyclone Alia near Satkhira, Bangladesh, one of the first countries to tap into a fund that helps poor states cope with and adapt to climate change.

Envoys from more than 190 nations in Cancún were given a year to decide whether to extend the frayed Kyoto Protocol.

The agreement fell well short of the broad changes scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change in coming decades. But it lays the groundwork for stronger measures in the future, if nations are able to overcome the emotional arguments that have crippled climate change negotiations in recent years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/science/earth/12...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

Nasa's top climate scientist Jim Hansen told a jury at the trial of 20 environmental activists that he had begun speaking out about climate change again in the past five years because of his grandchildren.

[James Hansen, whose speech to Congress in 1988 is seen as pivotal in first bringing climate change to the

world’s attention. Photograph: Melanie Patterson/AP Photos/The Daily Iowan]James Hansen, whose speech to Congress in 1988 is seen as pivotal in first bringing climate change to the world’s attention. Photograph: Melanie Patterson/AP Photos/The Daily Iowan

"I did not want them to say: 'Pa you understood what was happening but you never made it clear'," the 69-year-old told the trial last Monday.

The activists were found guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass by the court today, and could now face suspended prison sentences.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/14-0


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.

How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.

For a more detailed explanation, we must turn our attention to the snow in Siberia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen....


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Ralph....I am sure that you would have been a great candidate for snake-oil salesmen and other con-artists. How can you be so gullible and quick to swallow such a huge whopper of a lie as the whole "global warming" fiasco. Climates have changed and fluctuated over the history of the world and most of these changes have happened prior to man's industrial age. Dont try to think on that too hard as it will diminish your admiration for Al Gore as he slips his hand into all of our pockets.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

Where've you been braudboy? Your constructive, erudite comments have been missed. You're right I'm gullible enough to believe what 98 percent of the climate scientists are saying. And you're gullible enough to believe what one or two percent are saying. I guess 'we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your comment.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

98% might agree that there is climate change, but if you are telling me that it is proven that it is MAN-MADE global change, well, you have been lied to. This is the point where you have been snookered. It is totally unprovable and it sets up nicely for a wonderful con-game.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

Wrong! 98% say that man-made green house gases have led to warming. It's true that they don't say that emissions are the sole determinant of climate for any given time or period. The climate is a result of external factors AND man made emissions. I find it hard to understand why deniers find it so hard to comprehend that climate change isn't an either/or matter of man made emissions or natural factors (sunspots, etc.). Think about it.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Ralph, how you cannot see the political forces in play here is beyond me. But, if you will just expand your mind and think about all of the fluctuations in climate throughout history, (all before the industrial times of man), and ask the question....How did this happen. The reality is that climate is way,way,way, too big for scientists to examine in a scientific fashion. There is no ability to isolate and there are far too many variables and unknowns to produce anything more than theories and guesses. It also allows for alot of maneuvering and changes to make all weather conditions fall into their acceptance. This is very convenient when whatever happens, these clowns can say this is because of man's doings. The very gullible will believe!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

Of course there have been climate fluctuations throughout history, before the industrial revolution. Now, man made factors pushing us toward warming have been added to the equation. The effect of man mad factors (carbon emissions) could be canceled, accentuated or overwhelmed by age-old natural forces. Nobody can be sure what the future holds.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Ralph, but how can a scientist determine if it is man or if it is just the normal fluctuations of our climate??? The answer is "They cannot"! They can theorize and guess. These scientist also need funding and isnt if funny that they seem to come to conslusions to the delight of the people funding them. I can say with certainty that I have raised the sea level if I jump into the ocean. It is a fact. But common sense tells me that the ocean can handle my disturbance and it will adjust. Yes, man has an effect on this earth, but the planet can handle anything we can dish out. These scientists are playing on fears of the weak and simple-minded and are being influenced by political forces who have targeted the ignorance of the left to gain power and influence. All you have to do is look at their actions. Al Gore is not trying to cut back his carbon footprint. He is trying to grow it and grow his wealth too, at the expense of idiots who would allow his con-game to continue.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

Wrong again. The amount of greenhouse gas pumped into the atmosphere and it's effect on the earth's temperature has been and is being scientifically measured. Denier opinion has been influenced by propaganda from Exxon, the Koch Brothers and the coal and electric power companies. They hired the same people who were financed by the cigarette companies to propagandize against the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. This is well documented. If you think your such an expert on climate why not get off your butt and write a hub explaining your theory instead of pestering me?


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I dont have to be an expert in criminolgy to realize when someone is trying to reach in my pocket and take my money. I have written a hub on global warming, and I might just write another one. I dont mean to pester you.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

New government figures for the global climate show that 2010 was the wettest year in the historical record, and it tied 2005 as the hottest year since record-keeping began in 1880.

NYTimes 1-13-11

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/science/earth/13...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

But in the last few years, coffee yields have plummeted here and in many of Latin America’s other premier coffee regions as a result of rising temperatures and more intense and unpredictable rains, phenomena that many scientists link partly to global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/science/earth/10...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

The case about global warming scheduled to be argued on Tuesday before the Supreme Court is a blockbuster. Eight states — from California to New York, plus New York City — sued six corporations responsible for one-fourth of the American electric power industry’s emissions of carbon dioxide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/opinion/19tue1.h...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

What's worse for the ocean than an oil spill? Global warming, of course.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/wh...


writeronline 5 years ago

I'm sad to be reading this - not the hub itself, although the booklist below does rather give the game away.... I'm sad because I've just read the entire comments section and it supports exactly a point of view that I wrote a hub about recently. Specifically the quasi-religious certainty with which those who Truly Believe that global warming is all our fault, grandly dismiss those who hold a counter-view. My article's not full of science, or emotion, it just contains a few history-based observations of how often those who KNEW they were right; were wrong. Plus a quiet plea for a bit more respect for the views of others. We all share the one world, after all. Don't bother visiting if you're already mentally preparing your onslaught, but...

http://hubpages.com/hub/Since-Climate-Change-Relie...

Cheers


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

Sizzle Factor for a Restless Climate, NYTimes Op-ed

Wake up, deniers! Time to recognize our climate ain't what she used to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/opinion/20cullen...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago Author

Republicans Against Science

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republic...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

WASHINGTON -- A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming [financed by Koch] spent two years trying to find out whether mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of Climategate, a 2009 British scandal involving hacked e-mails of scientists.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

11-23-11

The anonymous hacker who shook the world of climate science two years ago by posting a trove of stolen e-mails delivered a new batch on Tuesday, stirring up climate-change contrarians a little more than a week before global negotiations on greenhouse gases are to begin in Durban, South Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/science/earth/ne...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

2010 Carbon Dioxide Output Shows Biggest Jump Ever - NYTimes.com

Emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning jumped by 5.9% in 2010, upending the hope that a brief decline during the recession might persist...This solidified a trend of rising emissions that will make it hard to forestall severe climate change.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

12-12-11

Climate Talks Bring Modest Agreement - NYTimes.com

A conference in South Africa ended with the promise to work toward a new global treaty in coming years and the establishment of a new climate fund.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/earth/co...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Thawing permafrost in the northern hemisphere is releasing huge amounts of methane from carbon trapped for 30,000 years in the ice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/science/earth/wa...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Politicians fiddle while climate related extreme weather events--floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes, heat waves-- increase in the US and around the world. A normal year in the US brings three or four billion dollar disasters. In 2011 there were a dozen such events costing an estimated $50 billion. Nevertheless the political climate for doing something about the changing climate is the worst in years. This is hampering critical research on climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/science/earth/cl...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Goodbye, Fish: Rising CO2 Direct Threat to Sea Life Common Dreams

Research shows the disastrous consequences rising carbon dioxide levels are having on ocean life. Researchers from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and James Cook U documented how CO2 "drives fish crazy."


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

TEA PARTY CONSPIRACY LOONIES FIGHT GREEN PROJECTS

Suspicious of government initiatives, protesters linked to the Tea Party are denouncing all manner of measures they equate with a 1992 United Nations resolution, Agenda 21.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Leaked documents from Heartland Institute, an organization known for attacking climate science, revealed a plot to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars. Koch foundation is one of the organization's contributors.

It is in fact not a scientific controversy. The vast majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by humans are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk. Whether and how to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases has become a major political controversy in the United States, however.

The National Center for Science Education, a group that has had notable success in fighting for accurate teaching of evolution in the public schools, has recently added climate change to its agenda in response to pleas from teachers who say they feel pressure to water down the science.

Mark S. McCaffrey, programs and policy director for the group, which is in Oakland, Calif., said the Heartland documents revealed that “they continue to promote confusion, doubt and debate where there really is none.”


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Rising Sea Levels a Growing Risk to Coastal U.S., Study Says - NYTimes.com

Flooding that was once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence, new research shows.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

San Francisco Fights Erosion as Coastal Cities Watch Closely - NYTimes.com

Every few years, stormy surf grinds away at Ocean Beach, a 3.5-mile stretch on the Pacific Ocean, pulling huge amounts of sand out to sea.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

5-1-12NYTimes--Clouds, the Last Gasp of Climate Change Deniers

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters - NYTimes.com

In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.5-1-12NYTimes--Clouds, the Last Gasp of Climate Change Deniers

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters - NYTimes.com

In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.


D Smith 4 years ago

For those of you interested there is a group show exploring these topics this June (2012) with the USGS marine division in Santa Cruz. You can get more information on the show at www.earthscienceartsc.com It is a way to showcase the research as well as the artist interpretations of what they are learning from the scientists.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Thanks for the information on the meeting in Santa Cruz.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

The Heartland Institute: "Not all global warming alarmists are murderers and tyrants," after pulling Chicago billboard ad featuring Ted Kaczinski as a global warming believer.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Heartland According to Wikipedia

The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Wikipedia, Heartland has been funded by Koch, Scaife, Exxon-Mobil, the tobacco industry and pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer and Eli Lily.Heartland According to Wikipedia

The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

5-9-12NYTimes OP-ED--"Game Over for the Climate" by James Hansen

Game Over for the Climate--James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It's happening. That's why I was troubled to read a comment by Pres. Obama that Canada would exploit the oil in its tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do." If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, the game is over.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

7-3-12NYTimes "A Climate Scientist Battles Time and Mortality"

Lonnie Thompson, Climate Scientist, Battles Time and Mortality - NYTimes.com

Lonnie G. Thompson, one of the scientists who essentially discovered global warming, has for years climbed mountains to gather ice he examines for climatic changes.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

7-11-12NYTimes--Global Warming Makes Heat Waves More Likely, Study Finds

Global Warming Makes Heat Waves More Likely, Study Finds - NYTimes.com

Researchers around the world studied six extreme weather events. Some of the weather extremes bedeviling people around the world have become far more likely because of human-induced global warming, researchers reported on Tuesday.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

7-30-12NYTimes--"The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic" Richard A. Muller

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - NYTimes.com

The average land temperature on earth has risen 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years — essentially all of it caused by human emission of greenhouses gases.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

8-7-12WallStreetJournal OPINION: "Fred Krupp: A New Climate Change Consensus"

Fred Krupp: A New Climate-Change Consensus - WSJ.com

In The Wall Street Journal, Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp writes that it's time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost-effective climate solutions.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

8-7-12NYTimes-Study Finds More of Earth is Hotter and Says Global Warming Is at Work

Extreme Heat Is Covering More of the Earth, a Study Says - NYTimes.com

Led by NASA’s James E. Hansen, the study said it was nearly certain that events like the 2011 Texas heat wave were caused by the human release of greenhouse gases.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

9-19-12NYTimes--Arctic Sea Ice Sets a New Low That Leads to Warnings-Justin Gillis

Arctic Sea Ice Melts More Rapidly than Forecast

The melting of Arctic sea ice has ended for the year, but not before demolishing the previous record — and setting off new warnings about the rapid pace of change in the region... ice covered 24% of the surface compared to about half in the 1970s.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

11-9-12NYTimes--Climate Change Report Outlines Perils for U.S. Military

Climate Change Report Outlines Perils for U.S. Military - NYTimes.com

A study commissioned by the C.I.A. and other agencies says that the acceleration of climate change will place unparalleled strains on the American military and intelligence agencies in coming years.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

The Nation "If We Ignore Climate Change We're All On a Sinking Ship"

If there was ever a response to Mitt Romney’s smug RNC laugh line about climate change--or to Obama’s failure to address it--Hurricane Sandy delivered.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

11-25-12NYTimesOPINION "Is This the End?"

Is This the End? - NYTimes.com

Whether in 50 or 100 or 200 years, there’s a good chance that New York City will sink beneath the sea.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

12-3-12AssociatedPress--3% Increase in Heat Trapping Emissions Last Year

Climate Change Study Indicates Amount Of Heat-Trapping Pollution Rose By 3 Percent Worldwide Last Year

WASHINGTON -- The amount of heat-trapping pollution the world spewed rose again last year by 3 percent. So scientists say it's now unlikely that global warming can be limited to a couple of degrees, which is an international goal.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

12-9-12NYTimes--Climate Talks Yield Commitment to Ambitious, but Unclear, Actions

Climate Talks Yield Commitment to Ambitious, but Unclear, Actions - NYTimes.com

Delegates agreed to extend the increasingly ineffective Kyoto Protocol and other unspecified actions to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases.


Jacqueline 3 years ago

Yeah, it happens sometimes ... Nothing special.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

1-8-13NYTimes "2012 Was the Hottest Year Ever"

2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S. - NYTimes.com

Last year blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/20...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

2-10-13NYTimes--"It's Not Easy Being Green" by David Leonhardt

It’s Not Easy Being Green - NYTimes.com

The strongest argument for a major government response to climate change is the obvious argument: climate change.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

3-8-13NYtimes--Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years

Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years, Study Says - NYTimes.com

The modern warming period is unique over a longer period than previously thought, according to research to be published in the journal Science.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

3-26-13WallStreetJournal "Common Ground on Energy and Climate"

George Shultz, Tom Steyer Find Commoun Ground on Energy - WSJ.com

Former Secretary of State George Shultz and leading Democratic activist and fundraiser Tom Steyer found common ground in a discussion with Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Gerard Baker at the Journal's ECO:nomics conference.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

5-15-13NYTimes Insurers Stray From Conservative Line on Climate Change

Insurers Stray From the Conservative Line on Climate Change - NYTimes.com

A new institute, financed by the insurance industry, not only believes in global warming but also supports a carbon tax to combat it.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

5-18-13NYTimes EDITORIAL--Climate Warnings Growing Louder

Climate Warnings, Growing Louder - NYTimes.com

Given new evidence on carbon pollution, President Obama should get moving on global warming.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

5-27-13NYTimes--"Geoengineering Our Last Hope or a False Promise?"

Geoengineering - Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? - NYTimes.com

We should not try to play God with the planet.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago Author

8-20-13NYTimes 8-20-13 "Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Climate Change"

Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com

The panel found that human activity is almost certainly behind most temperature increases in recent decades.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 2 years ago Author

9-10-13NYTimes--"By 2047, Coldest Years May be Warmer Than Hottest in Past, Scientists Say"

By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past, Scientists Say - NYTimes.com

A new paper based on top climate models says that by about 2047, average temperatures across the globe will be higher than any highs recorded previously, with tropics hit earlier.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 2 years ago Author

11-1-13NYTimes "Climate Change Seen Posing Risk to Food Supply"

Climate Change Seen Posing Risk to Food Supplies - NYTimes.com

A leaked draft of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that climate change could reduce output and send prices higher in a period when global food demand is expected to soar.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 2 years ago Author

11-21-13NYTimes OP-ED Global Warming Doesn't Cause Twisters

The Truth About Tornadoes - NYTimes.com

Global warming is real. But it is not causing more twisters.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 2 years ago Author

1-19-14NYTimes OPINION: "If You See Something, Say Something" Michael E. Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center, Penn State University

Log In - The New York Times

"THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist. "


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 20 months ago Author

3-25-14 Salon "10,853 out of 10,855 Scientific Papers Support Global Warming"

10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame - Salon.com

Virtually all of the scientific papers published in 2013 accept climate change As geochemist James Powell proves, the only people debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren't doing research.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 20 months ago from West Virginia

The thing is with me is that anyone can make up numbers. Show pictures of what is going on and be unbiased with them. That Obam thing about emmissions...well that was done way back in the 1970's as you may or may not recall that was when all cars had to pass an emmission test. Then smoke stacks and the like followed suit and that was way before Obama. It is in the big cities that this is all happening with the vast amount of polution. There are no trees to eat it up. The new things with no vegetables in lwans is totally ridiculous. The government will and has stepped on our toes and their own with all that stuff. Here we are needing more vegetation and HOA's are preventing it. Why?

Global warming and the like have been going on far more than the years they have numbers for them. It is cyclic and always will be. There are vast ocians and land that have never been explored. Where do they fit into all this. Just get out of the work buildings and cubicles and out of the cites (which if you take a good look at them they are under a dome of pollution) and get into the wilderness and you will se a much different picture. Read lots of Smithsonian and National Geographic Magazines and do that research.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 20 months ago Author

Lady Guinevere, thanks for your comment. However, in my opinion, you should do a bit more reading up on climate change. The science is quite clear. The task now is educational and political. Educating the public on climate change facts and convincing polluting countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions before it's too late.

The climate at any given point in time is a product of unpredictable natural forces that as you observed have produced climate cycles from time immemorial PLUS man-made factors--greenhouse gas emissions. We can't predict or control natural forces, but we are capable of measuring and controlling greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and coal fired power plants. You mentioned the oceans--just this week there was a new report on how much damage to oceans has occurred. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/st...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 20 months ago Author

"The thing that you missed in my comment was that they already and since the 1970's have curbed the greenhouse effect from Auto emmisions. " That's absolutely not true. There have been significant improvements, but motor vehicle emissions remain the second largest source of green house gases. Coal fired power plants are the largest source. Moreover, it's not just or primarily even a U.S. problem. China, India and other countries are contributing to climate change.

The science is clear. What remains is a worldwide educational and political problem.

Thanks for the interesting links. Howeve, they don't convince that we don't need to be doing something about climate change.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 20 months ago from West Virginia

I have links that do say that other nations are doing and have done things.

How is the auto emmisions statement that I made not true? I lived and do still live in areas that you have to have that checked for your auto to pass it's yearly inspections. I lived in the 70's when that came about and was made a law. Today's auto's are cleaner than the older models.

Here are the links to support the facts that other countires are helping and have been helping for a long time:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-06-26/sweden-impor...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/29...

http://www.recycling-guide.org.uk/facts.html

http://www.aneki.com/recycling_countries.html

http://geothermal.marin.org/geopresentation/sld070...

http://www.energydigital.com/top10/2718/Top-Ten:-G...

http://pureenergies.com/us/blog/top-10-countries-u...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 20 months ago Author

Certainly US cars have improved their fuel economy and reduced their emissions, but motor vehicles remain a big source of harmful emissions. Also, it's true that a number of other countries have done more than the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions and adopt clean energy. Still, overall much remains to be done if the world is to avoid catastrophic warming.

http://hubpages.com/politics/How-to-Reduce-CO2-Emi...


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 20 months ago from West Virginia

I read and commeted on your hub.

It is cyclic the way this earth works. Nothing leaves it and everything gets recycled. We are a biosphere. Mother Nature can and will and has taken care of the planet for a long time and will continue to do so. I trust in her. Humans are but ants on her just as lice and mites are on us.

If we continue to build on places that we KNOW are not right and there are lanslides and earthquakes and volcanoes that erupt, then we get what we deserve.

Oh and Volcanic eruptions cause the most carbon pollution in the air that we breath...how would you fix that?


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 20 months ago from West Virginia

It is not only the fuel that we use it is also the growing of food that we waste and you can find out more about that here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/15...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 20 months ago Author

1-31-15NYtimes "Most Republicans Say They Back Climate Change"

Log In - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.

Continue reading the main story

Related Coverage

How the Poll on Global Warming Was ConductedJAN. 30, 2015

Most of the eastern United States were cooler than average last year, but globally 2014 was the warmest year since 1880, federal scientists say.

2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics JAN. 16, 2015

Gov. Rick Scott, like many in his party, sidesteps climate change by saying he is not a scientist.

Political Memo: Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They’re Not ScientistsOCT. 30, 2014

Senator Mitch McConnell has said he will fight regulations that would limit carbon emissions.

Washington Memo: Republicans Vow to Fight E.P.A. and Approve Keystone PipelineNOV. 10, 2014

Federal Construction Projects Must Plan for Flood Risks From Climate Change JAN. 30, 2015

Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll. Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working